John Tombes—17th Century Antipaedobaptist

By Michael T. Renihan

Michael T. Renihan, PhD, is pastor of Heritage Baptist Church, Worcester, MA, and Academic Dean at the Reformed Baptist Pastoral Training Institute.

There is an untold chapter from the book of the Westminster Assembly in particular and Puritanism more generally. It is about a Puritan academic and pastor named John Tombes. He was a noted polemicist for the baptism of disciples alone. In this role he was engaged actively with some of the Divines seated at the Assembly. Tombes sought needed reform in the churches of England and beyond. That reform was a return to the apostolic and post-apostolic practice of disciple baptism. This essay will examine the historical background and setting, the engagement with Westminster, and the fallout that followed.[1]

Biographical Background

John Tombes was born in Bewdley, Worcestershire, England, in or about the year 1603. Not much is known about his early life other than to assume the proper foundational grammar school education was in place for a child who would eventually enter the halls of the University at Oxford at the age of fifteen. Such an education was uncommon and expensive. It was sought for promising children.

Tombes matriculated at Magdelan Hall, Oxford University, in 1618. In the typical three years he finished a Bachelor of Arts (1621). He continued as a student under William Pemble, the well-respected Puritan. Tombes completed the Master of Arts in 1624. Upon the death of his tutor that year, Tombes succeeded Pemble as Catechetical Lecturer at Magdelan Hall. Tombes was but twenty-one years of age at that succession. While teaching at Magdelan Hall, he pursued a Bachelor in Divinity degree. He finished it in 1631. This was a seven-year process to assure one’s mastery of things divine. It was a time full of lectures attended and given, disputes and debates with a life centered in the hubbub of the university.

Between the years 1624 and 1630, Tombes lectured at St. Martin Carfax, a church whose tower still stands as a tourist attraction in downtown Oxford. In November of 1630 he was made vicar of Leominster, Herefordshire. It was reported that his preaching in “Lemster” was popular with the parishioners. The next year he married Mary Scudder, daughter of Henry Scudder, the much admired author of A Christian’s Daily Walk. “Father” Scudder would later deliver Tombes’ thoughts on baptism to a committee studying the sacraments at the Westminster Assembly.

In 1641 Tombes left Leominster for Bristol as Royalist forces forced him out. Bristol had been under the control of parliamentarian sympathizers up to that time. In Bristol, Tombes had the income or living or support of All Saints Parish. In that city he also had a public debate with an unnamed “ingenious baptist” whose arguments and manners converted him to antipaedobaptist views. Yet, “Due to the violence of the King’s Party” in Bristol, and the recommendation of his “Physitian,” Tombes left for London in 1642. He was well aware that the Westminster Assembly was about to convene. He desired to clear up the issue of baptism once for all. He planned to consult libraries and scholars, dusty books and sitting divines.

After his arrival in London, Tombes was placed at Fenchurch near the Tower of London. The parishioners, aware of his antipaedobaptist views, refused to hear him preach. Tombes sought another charge through John White, chairman of a committee handling the “plundered ministers” of that time.

After some controversy with White and Stephen Marshall, Tombes was placed as Master of the Temple Church in 1643, although a recent plaque in the building names Tombes as only a “Commonwealth Preacher.” Soon he was dismissed from this post after publishing a treatise against infant baptism in response to Stephen Marshall’s attack.

Tombes returned to Bewdley where as the priest at a Chapel-at-ease he did not have to baptize infants. While serving in that Parish he gathered an informal society of baptized believers from within the neighborhood for mutual edification. In 1646 he was made the rector of Ross and perpetual curate of Bewdley to add to his ability to provide for himself and his family. In ecclesiastical terms, this made Tombes a pluralist – multiple parishes providing his income.

While in Bewdley a friendship with the young Richard Baxter ensued and flourished. They spoke in each other’s pulpits every other week for a weekday lecture. Kidderminster and Bewdley were just a handful of miles away from each another. There was a falling out between the two when Baxter made application in a sermon to infant baptism. Letters, discussions, and controversy ensued. On 1 January 1649/50 these two champions held a day long debate on the issue of the subjects of baptism.

The controversy with Baxter caused a great alienation of affections from the townspeople in Bewdley. Tombes moved on to another position where he could function as a man of God without violating his conscience by baptizing infants. He moved to another non-parochial post as Master of the Hospital at Ledbury. He was forsaken by the Chapel in Bewdley and then restored to the income from Leominster.

In 1653 Tombes, a known antipaedobaptist, received the respect of the Protectorate. He was appointed a trier under the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell. A trier was a minister who tried or tested the fitness of other ministers as they sought to be appointed or elected to pulpits. This was a position with great prestige religiously and politically. It was reserved for well-respected men of some attainment in divinity. It speaks to the character and knowledge of a man like Tombes.

Depending on the political sympathies of the day, it was at either the Restoration of the Monarchy or the Great Ejection of the Ministers (1662), when Tombes laid down his living forever. He repudiated his ordination, since he could not in conscience accept the Anglican Settlement. Tombes moved to Salisbury as a widower. He met and married Elizabeth Combs, a widow of some means. While living there he attended St. Edmonds Church. In 1672 his house was licensed as a “Presbyterian Meeting Place” under the second of the Conventicles Acts. In this case, “Presbyterian” was merely a synonym for non-conformist. On 26 May 1676 Tombes passed on from this world. He was buried in the churchyard of St. Edmonds. Although his body is dead, his words continue to speak and inform the thoughts of subsequent generations including our own. His legacy is a vigorous defense of believer baptism that covers more published pages than any other writer since the dawn of the printing press. Yet, into obscurity he has fallen and remained.

Tombes’ Baptismal Theology

Fifteen out of Tombes thirty main literary works touch upon the subject of baptism. The majority of these books interact with his contemporaries according to the scholastic methodology of his era. Only two of these works present his baptismal theology in a direct and popular manner, though still in Puritan academic fashion. He uses the structure of the syllogism to give substance to his arguments along with sola Scriptura as his authority to “straighten” the truth.

His first work is also his first published piece on the issue. Tombes’ Exercitations were presented to a committee of the Westminster Assembly commissioned to examine the issue of proper baptism.[2] In the Exercitations, Tombes argues his case through twenty-five arguments in English for the popular dissemination of the matter, that are equivalent to nine arguments presented in the original Latin to the Westminster Divines.[3] The arguments break out into four categories: (1) exegetical, where he dealt with the meaning of texts; (2) historical, where he interacted with beliefs and practices in antecedent ages; (3) theological, where he reflected upon the basis for and reasoning about truths asserted; and (4) practical, where he considered the ecclesiastical and pastoral implications of the practice. Among the arguments presented, eleven are exegetically based, five are predominantly theological, four are historical, and the remaining five are driven by practical and pastoral concerns within a theological and historical framework.

The second clear, and positive, presentation of Tombes’ theology of baptism comes as his last work on the matter. In 1659, after many years of reflection, Tombes dropped his rigid scholastic methodology from his Oxford “experience” in order to present more popularly his thoughts in the form of a catechism. In forty questions and answers, Tombes gives a digest of his ever-maturing thought to facilitate an understanding of the basic issues.[4] Or, in his words “To the Christian Reader”:

Many are the things at this day charged on Antipoedobaptists in their Doctrine and Practise, which have been proved to be unjustly imputed to them, by many large Treatises extant in print. For a more facile understanding of the truth than by reading larger Tracts, is this Compendium, in a manner of a catechism composed and published in this time, wherein others of different judgment, have thought fit to declare their way to the world, which is done, not because the disagreement in other things is either small, or of particular persons (whose cause is to be severed from that which is commonly held) and therefore requires not a distinct Confession or Declaration from that which is by others published.[5]

Tombes, however, also prejudices the reader of his Catechism towards his own position by poisoning the well filled with his opponents writings with these prefatory remarks:

[T]he Doctrine of which is one article of the foundation of Christianity, Heb. 6.2. whereby we put on Christ, Gal 6.27. united to his members, Ephes. 4.5. conformed to Christ, Col 2.12. Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. required with faith to salvation, Mark 16.26. with repentance to remission of sins, Acts 2.38. with express profession of the Baptized’s faith required, Acts 8.37. upon manifestation of conversion, Acts 10.47. Acts 11.17. as the duty of the Baptized, and not a meer priviledge, Acts 22.16. most solemly administered in the Primitive times, with strict examination and greatest engagement of persons baptized, accounted the chief evidence of Christianity, of as much or more moment than the Lord’s Supper; insomuch that some conceived from Heb. 6.4. that falling away after it irreparable. But the pretended Baptism of Infants, as now used slightly and profanely done, quite different from Christ’s Institution and the Apostles practise by Ministers and people in so wholy and carnal manner as that, it is upon and with gross untruths and perverting of holy Scripture, obtruded on unwary souls with a pretence of a Baptismal Vow, which is a meer fiction, and so many ill consequents both in Christian conversation and communion and church-constitution and Government, that were men sensible to their evil as they should be, they would tremble at such mockery of God, and abuse of so holy an Ordinance of God’s worship and men’s souls by it, and with such arrogant presumption in avowing such a manifest invention of men as God’s precept. The aim of the composer of it is the manifestation of the truth, wherein doth he rejoyce, and desires thou mayest rejoyce with him.[6]

A brief taste of Tombes’ baptismal theology can be gleaned by the many and varied responses to his work. Almost all of the theologians and churchmen who wrote on baptism in the last sixty years of the seventeenth century did so with Tombes as the whetstone. They sought to redeem him or refute him. They all succeeded in a vast output on the printed page.

The Consequence Of Public Discourse

After nearly twelve years of ministry in “Lemster, in Hereford-shire,” Tombes and his family left due to the “violence of the Kings Party.” After “much wandering” and “much danger,” Tombes set out for London. As he wrote, “I resolved to adventure a journey to London through Wiltshire, to conferre with Brethren of the Assembly.”[7]

This Assembly was the Westminster Assembly. Tombes seemed to have been a bit naïve. He was idealistic, thinking that his purely academic query would be met with objectivity. He was sorely mistaken. Through his inquiries, discussions, publications, and debates, an irretrievable flood of interaction was set in motion.

Tombes’ motivation in moving to London was stated as:

Wherefore I resolved if ever I came to London, to search further into those two points of meaning of I Cor. 7. 14. and the History of Paedobaptisme.... [B]eing come to London September 22, 1643. I applied my selfe to enquire into the points forenamed.[8]

As part of this inquiry, Tombes met with a number of ministers in London about January 1643[9 ]to discuss his scruples as regards infant baptism. According to Tombes, some of the ministers there present believed him to have been convinced of his error because he had nothing to say in reply.[10]

Tombes continued by presenting the motivation for those first and second literary works on the subject, both of which are lost. He wrote:

Not long after the Conference, my most loving and reverend Father in law, Master Henry Scudder, fearing the event of the matter, after some writing that past betweene us, advised me to draw up the reasons of my doubts, and he undertook to present them to the Committee chosen (as I conceived it) to give satisfaction about that point.... ...I first drew up nine first arguments in my Excercitation, which were delivered as I relate in my Examen in February and March 1643. and after in July following, the other three.[11]

The first literary work by Tombes on baptism were the letters to Henry Scudder. The second was the original Exercitation expressing nine arguments penned in Latin for the Westminster Assembly sitting in London. The third is also lost to posterity. It was a one-page work also given to Henry Scudder. This one- page, in quarto, contained, as Tombes explained, “the main ground of my doubt.”[12]

Controversy From Without

Tombes then met with a challenge from the pulpit. He gave the background and a firsthand account of that day’s events:

Now the Papers[13] before named, I perceived were tossed up and down from one to another, and it seemes Master Edwards the Controversie Lecturer at Christ-Church got them, and picking out some passages, but concealing others that would have cleared them under pretence of refuting them, with the writing of another that be joined with mine, meerly abused me in the Pulpit at Christ-Church: which I immediately charged him with after his Sermon in the Vestry, and he only excused it by telling me he named me not, though there were sundry Ministers there that knew he meant me.[14]

While in Oxford, Tombes attended Thomas Goodwin’s lectures on the subject of infant baptism and went again to hear Master Edwards and his discourse at Christ Church College. He also read “many Treatises and Sermons.” Tombes distilled all of this activity with the phrase, “in many of which I found rather invectives than arguments.”[15]

Tombes’ controversial views were becoming known. The Church to which he had been assigned in London, Fenchurch, refused to hear him preach, even though Tombes “meddled not with that matter in the Pulpit.” Yet his reputation preceded him in that place. One of Tombes’ “loving friends,” a member of the Assembly, “understanding the Honourable Societies of the Temples wanted a Preacher, solicited the bringing of [him] thither.”[16]

The Master of the Temple had been traditionally appointed directly by the Crown. During the uncertain time of Parliamentarian rule in London, this prerogative of selection was given over to the House of Commons. The issue of Tombes’ appointment was given over to the Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster. The Divines selected a committee to nominate a “Preacher” for the Temple’s societies. Stephen Marshall was on the committee. Marshall did not like Tombes’ theological peculiarity. Tombes was rejected.[17]

Tombes was without an ecclesiastical charge. He had contact with John White, Chairman of the Committee for Plundered Ministers. Master White’s desire was to dispute with Tombes on baptism before recommending him or supporting him further. This occasioned Tombes’ fourth unpublished literary work on the matter. Tombes tells posterity of his action: “Which occasion I tooke to open my condition to him in a letter.” This exchange brought forth a book by John White entitled Infant Baptisme proved lawfull by Scripture.[18]

While still without means to earn a living, Tombes continued the narrative of his misfortunes. “Shortly after in August. 1644, I met with Marshall’s Sermon.” This must have been a handwritten copy of Stephen Marshall’s sermon, not published until 1645, entitled, in publication, A Sermon on the Baptizing of Infants; preached in the Abbey-Church at Westminster, at the Morning Lecture.[19] This encounter with Marshall’s sermon provoked Tombes’ fifth literary work on baptism. Tombes justified his action in this way:

[A]nd finding the vehemancy of his spirit against Antipaedobaptists, and having had experience both of his, and Master Whites inflexiblenesse by my former writings, and seeing no likelihood of imploiment and maintenance for me and mine, except I would gather a separated Church, which I durst not do, as not knowing how to justifie such a practise, I resolved to make a full answer to Master Marshals Sermon, and finished it November 11. and having with much difficulty transcribed one Copy, and gotten another written for me, I sent my own to Master Marshall, who received it December 9, 1644.[20]

Marshall agreed to see Tombes. Tombes did not ask for a response to his work, but for a conversation about the pulpit at the Temple. Tombes asked Marshall, “Whether he held me fit for the Ministery or not, notwithstanding my dissent from him on that point.” Marshall’s reply was, in Tombes’ words, “[H]e desired to know first whether I would keep my opinion to my selfe.” Tombes returned this answer in writing carried by “Father Scudder”:

I request you returne this answer to Master Marshall, that whereas I requested him to declare whether he thought me fit for the Ministery or not, notwithstanding my dissent about Paedobaptisme, and he demands of me a promise of silence in that point, I conceive he is bound by the rules of justice, mercy and prudence to do it without requiring that condition, and that he hath no reason to be jealous of me considering my carriage in this manner. Neverthelesse when I shall understand what promise he would have from me, and what is intended to be done by him for the discussing the point, and clearing of Truth, to which I ought not be wanting, and what advantage I may have by his agency for my imployment and maintenance, I shall give him a punctual answer, and am resolved for peace sake to yield as farre as I may without violating the solemne Covenant I have taken, and betraying truth and innocency, Decem. 26.[21]

Marshall and Tombes met on December 30, 1644 for a “friendly conference...in the morning before the [Westminster] Assembly sat.” Tombes recapitulated the essence of that meeting:

At the beginning of that Conference, Master Marshall having this last written message in his hand, & reading those words, [and he demands of me a promise of silence in that point] told me that he did not demand of me a promise of silence in that point; for that was beyond his line: this was his very expression. As soon as ever I heard those words, I conceived my selfe freed from the snare I most feared of making a promise, which as the case might stand, I could not keep with a good conscience. Then Master Marshall spake to this effect, that yet for the satisfaction of those who should enquire of him concerning me, he desired to know my intentions. Whereupon I dealt freely, that I intended not to publish my opinion in the Pulpit, if I might be where I should not be put to baptize: for I conceived it not likely, that there would be a Reformation of that thing in this Age, there having been so long a practise of Infant-Baptisme, and such a prejudice in men against the opposers of it: yet I told him that if any should preach to that people I had charge of, that which I conceived to be an errour, I did resolve to oppose it there, otherwise mens preaching abroad should be of no provocation to me: So that it is clear, I made no promise, and that intimation of mine intentions which I made was only, that I intended not to preach my opinion in that place unlesse provoked there.[22]

Tombes added a condition:

[T]hat if Lawes were likely to be enacted to make the deniall of Infant-Baptisme penall, I held my selfe bound in conscience to appeare in publique about the matter: yea, and Master Marshall told me he intended me some animadversions on my Examen; whence it may be collected, that neither Master Marshall nor my selfe had agreed to lay aside the dispute it selfe.[23]

The foregoing was not without controversy. Tombes believed he had removed any restraints to ministering at the Temple, save one concession; Marshall believed Tombes to have been silenced in the matter of antipaedobaptism in order to have an ecclesiastical appointment and income. Stephen Marshall pressed home one point, “That the Reformation of Congregations might be without altering the use of Infant-Baptisme.”[24]

Tombes repeated his pledge before Obadiah Sedgwicke, his “loving friend” from their days at Oxford. “[A]fter a triall of me three Lordsdaies at the Temple, I was at the end of January chosen by the Treasurers, and sundry others of the members of both the honourable Societies of the Temples to be their Preacher for a yeare.”[25]

Another Front

On another front, news came from New England that a law had been passed “against those that denied baptizing of Infants,” making the neglect of infant baptism penal. To mollify the civil and church authorities in New England, Tombes sent another handwritten copy of an augmented version of the Examen of Marshall’s sermon, yet unpublished.[26] This was also in direct response to Master John Cotton’s work published under the title The Groundes and Endes of the Baptisme of the Children of the Faithfull.[27]

Three of the Westminster Divines heard of Tombes’ “act” in sending his work to New England. Thomas Goodwin, Richard Vines, and Stephen Marshall “showed scorne” towards Tombes. This public display and “sundry things happened which induced me to yeeld to the importunity of those that solicited earnestly the publishing of my writings for the publicke good.” Tombes also sent to Marshall an enquiry as to whether Master Marshall would answer the “point of difference” expressed in the handwritten epilogue to Tombes Examen. The “best of the answer” Tombes received was, in Tombes’ words, “since I had now a place for my Ministery without baptizing Infants, he expected I would be quiet.”[28]

Tombes was aware that some in the Assembly “did have scruple in Conscience, the giving approbasion to me because of my opinion” and a growing response to antipaedobaptism in pulpit and in print. This added pressure to Tombes’ personal quest to clear the truth and to publish his work. Tombes gives historical insight:

The people of the city much inquired into this matter. A publique disputation was once allowed about it to which I was earnestly solicited, but for weighty reasons refused it. Sundry came to me to request the perusall of my papers for their satisfaction many learned, godly, and prudent persons, both of them that differed in judgement, as well as those that agreed with me, moved me to have them printed for the bringing of truth to light. I saw not wherein any danger to the State or Church might be created by the printing of them, and which was beyond all to me. I was confirmed it was a truth I held, had tried all fit meanes to have it examined, had been guided in the searching of it, and preserved for the businesse by many remarkable providences, and thereupon after prayer to God by my selfe, and with others for direction, I yeelded to the printing of them....[29]

This first published work actually included three works that introduced Tombes’ antipaedobaptist theology to the reading public in a comprehensive, yet polemical, manner. The title page read, Two Treatises and an Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme.[30] The first treatise was an English translation of the Latin Exercitation Tombes had delivered to the Westminster Assembly. His second unpublished work was presented in a popularized format to facilitate discussion and comprehension of the issues at hand. The second of the two treatises was the Examen of the Sermon of Mr Stephen Marshall, about Infant-Baptisme, in a letter sent to him. They were published on 15 December, 1645, nearly a year and a week after it was presented to Marshall in its handwritten form.

The publication “to cleare the truth” provoked a number of replies. Thomas Bakewell produced A Justification of the two points now in Controversy with the Anabaptists....[31] John Geree published a gracious reply under the short title of Vindiciae Paedobaptismi; or a vindication of Infant Baptism....[32] Doctor Nathaniel Homes (also Holmes) contributed A Vindication of Baptizing Beleevers Infants....[33] Marshall produced his own public reply, A Defence of Infant Baptism....[34] John Saltmarsh wrote The Smoke in the Temple. Wherein is a designe for peace and reconciliation of believers of the several opinions of these lines about ordinances....[35] John Ley replied to Saltmarsh mentioning Tombes in Light for Smoak....[36] William Hussey added his An Answer to Mr. Tombes, His special Examination of Infants-Baptisme.[37] Lastly, Thomas Blake answered a letter from Tombes with a preface from Edmund Calamy and Richard Vines entitled Mr. Blakes answer to Mr. Tombes his letter....[38]

Tombes could not disengage. The controversy was now not only public, but in print. Tombes gathered the materials and replied to each objection specifically after clearing the history of the dispute in the first section of his next published work, An Apology, or Plea for the Two Treatises, and Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme....[39]

Tombes answered particular questions and interacted with comments at length in an ingenious popularly written piece in narrative form. John Bachiler, who licensed the work for the press said, “Having perused this milde Apology, I conceive that the ingenuity, learning and piety therein contained deserve the Presse.”[40]

Due to the publication of the Apology, Tombes was forced to leave the Temple Church. He moved to Worcestershire where he was made “Rector at Ross and perpetual Curate at Bewdley.[41] Stephen Marshall agitated for Tombes’ dismissal, believing Tombes had broken his pledge to not go public with the point in controversy.[42] The inference had been drawn at some point and then remembered by Marshall.

In 1647, Robert Baillie (also Bailey and Bayley) published Anabaptism, the True Fountain of Independency, Antinomy, Brownisme, and Familisme, and most of the other Errours, which for the time doe trouble the Church of England, Unsealed.[43] In the same year, Tombes replied in a lengthy personal reply to Baillie, demonstrating how he had been wronged and his reputation tarnished by invectives in Baillie’s work. This work was dated 22 July, 1647.[44] Having no settlement from Baillie in the matter, Tombes sent another copy of the personal reply to Samuel Rutherford to take up the matter with Baillie, a fellow Scotsman and Covenanter.[45] Having still no resolution, Tombes sent a copy of the letter to the “Moderator and Commissioners in the Next Nationall Assembly of the Church of Scotland” on 24 September, 1650.[46] Hearing nothing from Scotland to resolve the matter, Tombes went into print with An Addition to the Apology, five years after he penned it as a private matter to Baillie.

In the intervening five years many set out to refute the new challenges manifest by the publication and preaching of antipaedobaptist theology. Two paedobaptist refutations directed at Tombes’ previous writings were, William Hussey, A 1st Provocation of Master Tombes to make good his generall charge against Mr. W. Husseys satisfaction to his scepticall exercitation, in 1647[47] and John Geree, Vindiciae Vindicarum; or a vindication of Infant Baptism....[48]

A New Venue

A difficult epoch in Tombes’ life started in 1649 while he ministered in Bewdley. A friendship was kindled with the young Richard Baxter, ministering a few miles away in Kidderminster. It was well-known at that time that Tombes was an ardent antipaedobaptist.[49] It was also known that Baxter had had previous public dealings with other antipaedobaptists.[50] In spite of this, Tombes and Baxter had a working relationship wherein they freely preached in each other’s pulpits for weekly lectures.[51]

As the theological issue over baptism arose, Tombes requested something from Baxter in writing in order to study and refute it. By this time, Tombes was well aware of the variety of foundations upon which paedobaptism was based. When written reasons for the practice were not forthcoming, Tombes’ disciples pressed Baxter for his words. Baxter decided to bring ten reasons for Infant Baptism to the minds of the Bewdlians at the end of a week-night sermon preached in their chapel. Tombes sought to counteract the sermon by preaching another from 1 Cor. 7:14 against the federated holiness of children and their claim to baptism therefrom. After multiple letters and a few private meetings, Tombes and Baxter agreed to a public debate on the matter to be held from 9:00am on 1 January, 1649. It was held in the chapel at Bewdley.[52] As one biographer recorded:

[H]e went up to Beudley, at what time Mr. Rich. Baxter preached at Kidderminster, another market town three miles distant from that place. And ‘tis verily thought that he was put upon the project of going there, purposefully to tame Baxter and his party, who then carried all the country before them. They preached against one another’s doctrines, Tombes being then a preacher at Beudley, which he kept with Lemster, newly restored to him, being before forced thence by the royal party, and published books against each other. Tombes was the Coryphaes of the anabaptists, and Baxter of the presbyterians. Both had a great company of auditors, who came many miles on foot round about, to admire them. Once, I think oftner, they disputed face to face, and their followers, were like two armies: and at last it came to pass that they fell together by the ears, whereby hurt was done, and the civil magistrate had much to quiet them. All scholars there and then present, who knew the way of disputing and managing arguments, did conclude that Tombes got the better of Baxter by far.[53]

The public debate of 1 January 1649 produced a prolonged dispute in print between Baxter and Tombes. Many theological writers were drawn into this disagreement. In these years the foundational theological bedrock of antipaedobaptism was established and codified for generations of “baptists” who used Tombes’ arguments without citation. As one paedobaptist wrote in 1698, “If you desire an answer to Mr. Tombs, the most Learnedst Champion for your Way, which most that have Written after him, have Copy’d from....”[54]

During this period Tombes found profound affirmation when the Oxonian establishment produced a paper that corroborated what Tombes had been saying for many years. In Tombes’ words:

Yea, the Oxford Divines in their late Reasons of the present Judgement of the University about the Solemne Covenant, [etc.] Approved by generall consent in a full Convocation, June 1, 1647. say, that Without the consentient Judgement and Practise of the Universall Church, (which we are not able to prove) they shoulde be at a losse, when they are called upon for proofe in the Point of baptizing Infants.[55]

Baxter used the introduction in The Saints Everlasting Rest (1650) to attack “Anabaptists” in general.[56] Tombes took exception to what Baxter included. He produced a work with a most evocative title, An Antidote against the Venome of a Passage, in the 5th direction of the Epistle Dedicatory....[57] Baxter followed with his first work on the issue titled, Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism.[58]

Baxter argued for paedobaptism from a different foundation than Blake, Geree, and Marshall. His basic argument was: since infants are already church members by birth, they have the same birthright to baptism that Jews had to circumcision. Tombes worked through Baxter’s arguments to produce what became the starting point for his multiple thousand page “full review” of the dispute as regards baptism. Tombes, in early 1652, published his Praecursor, or a Forerunner To a large Review of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism.[59]

Between 1650 and 1656, Baxter’s Plain Scripture Proof went through four editions. Each edition added new fuel to the raging dispute. Some of these additions were: An Answer to Mr. Tombes his Valedictory Oration to the People of Bewdley (1651), Letters that passed between Mr. Baxter and Mr. Tombes concerning the Dispute [of 1649] (1652), Praefestinantis Movator, Or, Mr. Tombes, his Praecursus, staid and examined, and proved not to be from Heaven, but of men (1652), A Briefe Confutation of divers other of Mr. T. his mistakes (n.d.), A Corrective For a Circumforaneous Antidote Against the Verity of a Passage in the Epistle before my Treatise of Rest (1656), An Addition to the twentieth Chapter of the First Part (n.d.), Arguments to prove that Baptism is a standing Ordinance for entering of all Church-Members (ordinarily,) and not first Discipling of a Nation.[60]

The letters between Baxter and Tombes show the issues leading up to and flowing from the disputation. The other additional works give ever-increasing insight into Baxter’s state of mind. Later that same year, 1652, Tombes would release the first part of his Magnum opus. In the subtitle we see his wit and his true perspective of Baxter’s position. The work was called Antipaedobaptism, or No Plain nor Obscure Scripture Proof of Infants Baptism or Church Membership. Being the first part of the full review of the dispute about Infant Baptism....[61] Tombes set out to refute all who opposed his position in order to give a “full review” of the issue. Tombes discussed the arguments put forth in earlier works by Stephen Marshall, John Geree, Richard Baxter, T. Cobbet, Mr. Thomas Blake, Josiah Church, and N. Stephens. Between the Apology in 1646 and Antipaedobaptism, Part One in 1652, Tombes received many replies via personal letters from his theological inquirers and opponents. Most of these are lost to posterity. We only have the answers to the letters incorporated by way of direct citation in Tombes’ work. This makes a degree of reconstruction of the letters possible due to Tombes’ methodology of quoting his opponent extensively whilst answering them. Tombes did not generalize in his replies. He set up no straw men. He sought to refute each separate strand of an argument. Those nuances were often many.

The work of Thomas Cobbet that gained the attention of Tombes was A Just Vindication of the Covenant and Church-Estate of Children of Church-Members as also their right unto Baptisme: wherein such things as have been brought by divers to the contrary, especially by Ioh. Spilsbury, A.R., Ch. Blackwood, and H. Den are revised and answered: hereunto is annexed a refutation of a certain pamphlet styled The plain and wel-grounded treatise touching baptism.[62] This work had been published in 1648. Tombes replied in 1652.

In 1650, after preaching his Valedictory Oration (farewell sermon), Tombes moved from Bewdley to Ledbury to direct St. Catherine’s Hospital. This was another non-parochial post. During this time, Tombes heard back from the General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk as regards his complaint against fellow covenanter Robert Baillie. The Assembly said:

That Jesus Christ be Lord over his own house, and that his ministers keep Courts and exercise Jurisdiction and discipline, and all the censures of the Kirk from the lowest to the highest, in his name only, against all that depart from and do oppose the truth; or that walk loosely as doth not become the Gospell.[63]

The political situation between Scotland and England had begun to unravel. The Kirk would not hear Tombes’ complaint. The implication to be drawn – Tombes opposed the truth. Tombes had only tried to act according to his conscience and in harmony with his understanding of what the Scriptures required of him to seek restoration. Seeing nothing else could be gained by keeping the matter private, and since Baillie’s work was already in print, Tombes published a work written in 1645 as his reply to Robert Baillie. It was called An Addition to the Apology For the two Treatises concerning Infant-Baptisme (1652).

Antipaedobaptism was on the minds of churchmen in England. At the Oxford Act, the annual academic convocation at the University in that city, in July 1652, Henry Savage delivered a dissertation on Tombes’ antipaedobaptist views. The work was published in 1655 in its original Latin after Tombes published his reply. Savage’s work was entitled Thesis Doctoris Savage nempe paedobaptismum esse licitum, confirmatio, contra refutationem mri Tombes.[64] Tombes’ reply to Savage was published in London as Refutatio Positionis ejusq; Confirmationis Paedobaptistmum esse licitum affirmantis ab Henrico Savage SS.T.D. Coll. Ball.[65] This exchange is noted for its pointed brevity. It must be said, however, that Tombes had not yet finished his full review of antipaedobaptism when Savage decided to criticize his views.

Others took up the paedobaptist mantle to publish more works against Tombes. In 1653 and 1654 works came from Thomas Blake,[66]

John Howe of Lynn,[67] and a work that gives insight into the form and content of the public disputations of the day, published by John Cragge, though often misattributed to Tombes in bibliographies, A Publick Dispute betwixt John Tombes, respondent, John Cragge and H. Vaughan, opponents, touching Infant Baptism.[68]

Tombes published a response to this specific work in short time. He called it A Plea of Anti-paedobaptists against, the vanity and falshood of scribled papers, entitled, The Anabaptists Anatomiz’d and silenc’d in a publique dispute... betwixt John Tombes, John Cragg, and Henry Vaughan, touching infant-baptism.[69] He also published the second part of his complete review as Antipaedobaptism: or, the second part of the full review of the dispute concerning Infant-Baptism.[70] In this work Tombes engaged the writings old and new, those published in books and sent to him as personal letters, of Stephen Marshall,[71] Richard Baxter,[72] Thomas Blake,[73] Thomas Cobbet, John Cotton, Nathaniel Homes, Robert Baillie, Daniel Featley, John Brinsley, Cuthbert Sydenham, Henry Hammond, and Thomas Fuller. This Second Part provoked exponentially more responses.

In 1655 and 1656 more works came forth to deal with Tombes’ arguments, attacks, and conjectures with greater specificity. His foe of ten plus years, Robert Baillie, published a work written in 1645 entitled The Disswasive from the Errours of the time[74] along with A vindication from the exceptions of Mr. Cotton and Mr. Tombes.[75] Another mentioned in the Second Part published as a review of his own was Henry Hammond, The Baptizing of Infants Reviewed, and Defended from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, in Antipedobaptisme.[76] Henry Savage’s work on Tombes from the Oxford Convocation of 1652 was published.[77] John Cragge replied with The Arraignment and Conviction of Anabaptism; or a Reply to Master Tombes his Plea for Anti-paedobaptists.[78] James Nayler, the Quaker, brought forth the provocative title The Foot yet in a Snare in reply to an essay Tombes had published in a work by John Tolderuy.[79] Even in Ireland, Tombes’ ideas were considered a danger. Samuel Winter preached, then published The summe of diverse sermons preached in Dublin, before the Lord Deputie Fleetwood... wherein the doctrine of Infant-Baptism is asserted and the main objections of Mr. Tombes, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Blackwood and others Answered.[80]

There was a single event that prompted much of the literary output of those years. In 1654, by an executive act of the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, Tombes was declared one of the “triers” for approbation of ministers. This was a high profile position in the Commonwealth period and politics. Tombes was one of thirty-eight central triers charged to examine ministers who applied for pulpits as to their fitness for ministry.[81] Perhaps the question in some minds was, “How could an antipaedobaptist be fit to try others?” Tombes’ work as a trier was not without its controversy. Tombes and Philip Nye examined a royalist, Anthony Sadler, for the ministry. Sadler did not like the treatment he received from their hands so he penned Inquisitio Anglicana: or the disguise discovered, showing the proceedings of the commissioners at White Hall, for the approbation of ministers, in the examinations of A. Sadler.[82]

From 1657 onward there were greater common foes for the Puritan and Reformed party to fight: Catholicism, Quakerism, Antinomianism and subtle variations on the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. There were political questions in the air as well. In this transitional context, Tombes published Antipaedobaptism; or the third part. Being a full review of the dispute concerning infant baptism.[83] In this work alone, Tombes interacted with arguments from thirty-one writers who sent letters or published works on the matter. Tombes had exhausted the arguments for antipaedobaptism and had answered to his own satisfaction the concerns of his detractors. There was but one man who still purposed, yet again, to engage Tombes on the issue – Richard Baxter.

On 4 May 1656, Baxter preached a sermon which presented ten reasons for the practice of infant baptism. Tombes, upon perusing the notes sent to him by Baxter, wrote Felo de Se. or Mr. Richard Baxters Self-destroying....[84] The time between replies shows the urgency of the debate had been lost. Tombes was amazed that Baxter had not acquiesced at all. Tombes was nonplussed that Baxter still believed, “[T]hat after 1625 years use of Christian Baptism, the Ministers of the Gospel should be as yet unresolved.”[85] He was compelled to reply.

In the same year Tombes presented a more popular work to the public. Dropping his rigid scholastic methodology for the second time, he produced A Short Catechism about Baptism.[86] In forty questions and answers Tombes presented a popular argument for his antipaedobaptist convictions in another genre. He thus presented convictions with thirty-two years of maturation.

Religious freedoms would wane as Cromwell died and his son, Richard, after proving himself inept at running the Commonwealth, resigned. Charles II had allowed for religious toleration in the Declaration at Breda, but that too came to naught. The openness wherein the debate on baptism thrived would come to a halt. Restraints and conformity in religion became part and parcel of the restored monarchy. Tombes, as a matter of conscience, could not conform theologically to the expectations implied in the Anglican Settlement after 1660. Therefore he laid down his living, repudiating his ordination, to live as a lay communicant in the National Church. His belief in the authority of Scripture for all areas of thought and life prompted his position as regards the restored King. Tombes wrote a controversial work entitled A Serious Consideration of the oath of the King’s Supremacy.[87] Coming from a former Cromwellian Trier, this seemed folly. It showed Tombes to be a man of conviction, not of mere convenience. This work eventually won Tombes an audience with King Charles II, through Lord Clarendon.[88]

The breakdown of prejudice against Tombes is seen in the commendations prefixed to two of Tombes’ other works in 1660. His major disputant a decade before was asked to commend Tombes’ anti-Catholic[89] and anti-Quaker[90] books to the reading public. In his prefatory comments in True Old Light, Baxter wrote:

[T]he reverend author hath very judiciously handled in this Treatise, and therefore I shall say no more of it. The truth is here opened (to the showing of their errours) with great Scripture evidence; which impartially considered, may easily convince all that believe the Scriptures: And make it appear that the Light that is in these men is Darknesse; (Luke 11. 35.) Though the difference, and too-eager Disputations between the Reverend Author and my self, about the point of Infant-Baptism, be well known, yet it is our desire that it be as much known, that we desire to hold the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace; as Members of the same Head and Body, uniting our force for the common Truths against the pernicious adversaries thereof: And though we own not each other, or our selves, the discerned errours in doctrine and life, which through human frailty we may be guilty of; Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, we desire to walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things; holding that if in any thing we be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto us.[91]

To show resolution in the face of hostile theological opinion, Baxter continued:

I have already told the Episcopal Brethren, that Bishop Usher and I did fully agree in half an hour, and therefore it is not long of us, that our wound is yet unhealed. And (though I never treated with Mr. Tombes about such a matter) I am confident that he and I should agree in one daies treaty, upon terms of communion, charity, and forebearance, among those of several waies. And therefore if we continued unhealed, let the shame and horror lie on them that are obstinate in their uncharitable waies.[92]

Tombes did not publish publicly against paedobaptism again for sixteen years. At that time, 1675, he wrote A Just Reply.[93] This work answered objections brought to the fore by Mr. Wills[94] and Mr. Blinman. Baxter used the publication of this work to publish his largest work on the issue, More Proofs of Infants Church-membership and Consequently their Right to Baptism: Or a Second Defence of Our Infant Rights and Mercies. In Three Parts.[95] In the subtitle, Baxter wrote:

The first is, The plain Proof of God’s Statute, or Covenant for Infants Church-membership from the Creation, and the Continuation of it till the Institution of Baptism; with the Defence of the Proof against the Frivolous Exceptions of Mr. Tombes. And a Confutation of Mr. Tombes his Arguments against Infants Church-membership....[96]

Tombes’ Death And Legacy

John Tombes died on 22 May, 1676. Within months, Baxter published the final chapter in the exchange with Tombes. He produced Review of the State of Christian Infants.[97] With Tombes was almost buried a now neglected chapter in the rich history of Puritan theology – the story of antipaedobaptism in the theology of the archetypical Anglican antipaedobaptist. This is truly a wonderfully rich part of a previously untold story from Puritan England.[98]

Notes

1. In large measure, this essay is from my work entitled, Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes: An Untold Story from Puritan England. The published work is based on a doctoral thesis at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University, entitled, Infant Baptism in the Thought of John Tombes. The published work is available from B and R Press, Auburn, MA, bandrpress@yahoo.com, originally published, 2001.
2. John Tombes, An Exercitation about Infant-Baptisme; Presented in certaine Papers, to the Chair-man of a Committee of the Assembly of Divines, Selected to consider of that Argument, in the years, 1643, and 1644, London, 1646. Published in Two Treatises and an Appendix to them Concerning Infant-Baptisme. The former Treatise being an Exercitation presented to the Chair-man of a Committee of the Assembly of Divines. The later an Examen of the Sermon of Mr Stephen Marshall, about Infant-Baptisme, in a letter sent to him. London, 1646.
3. Tombes gives his reason for the original Latin form of the Exercitations in these words: “I had resolved not to publish my writings in English, but in Latine, and therefore I first framed my Exercitation in Latine, conceiving the Assembly would have apprehended my aime and intention, to be to deale only with Schollars in this matter: but all things falling out crosse to my expectation, I conceive it was the will of God it should be printed as it was. This much for the justifying the publishing of my treatise.” See John Tombes, B.D. An Apology or Plea for the Two Treatises, and Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme; Published Decemb. 15, 1645. Against the unjust charges, complaints, and censures of Doctor Nathaniel Homes, Mr Iohn Geree, Mr Stephen Marshall, Mr John Ley, and Mr William Hussey; together with a Postscript by way of reply to Mr Blakes answer to Mr Tombes his letter, and Mr Edmund Calamy, and Mr Richard Vines Preface to it. Wherein the principall heads of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism are handled, and the insufficiency of the writings opposed to the two Treatises manifested, London, 1646, 15ff.
4. John Tombes, A Short Catechism about Baptism, London, 1659. Due to the difficulty of obtaining this significant work, it was manually reproduced and reprinted with identical pagination and spelling by this author. Copies are retained by me and a copy was deposited in the Joseph Angus Library at Regents Park College, Oxford, June 1994. It also appears in my Antipaedobatism in the Thought of John Tombes.
5. Tombes, Catechism, first two unnumbered pages. It is worth noting Tombes’ comments in three areas: (1) He draws attention to those whose cause is to be severed from the National Church because of views that didn’t conform to the majority opinion. His desire was to reform the church to bring about Credobaptism as that opinion; (2) He makes a passing mention of a Confession and Declaration which appear to be the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646 and the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration of Faith, 1658; (3) As an advocate of a National Church he leaves an interesting inference to be drawn — that there is enough theological agreement among these diverse groups so that only a catechism on “right baptism” is needed. “.. . I have thought necessary to be done because of the importance of restoring right baptism”, second unnumbered page. Given the legitimacy of this inference, Tombes makes modern readers consider the basic implications of theological unanimity and diversity. Tombes, as a pseudonym for theological interaction, is an argument to be tolerated and to tolerate on things legitimately disputable.
6. Tombes, Catechism, unnumbered pages 2, 3. Behind the rhetoric lies Tombes’ initial concern—to reform the Church by the Word of God. His invective can be understood as venting frustration over the many injustices he experienced due to his beliefs or, perhaps, as a device of the time for gaining one’s attention towards influencing them or pacification through education of the points in the matter, or as a mixture somewhere in between.
7. Tombes, Apology, 6.
8. Ibid., 7.
9. This date corresponds to January 1643 according to the modern reckoning. In the seventeenth century, they changed the year in March. So, January 1643 (modern reckoning) is chronologically after July 1643 (old reckoning).
10. Ibid., 8.
11. Ibid., 9.
12. Ibid. Tombes stated that this work was less than forty lines long.
13. Principally the original Latin Exercitation and the one page letter to Scudder.
14. Tombes, Apology, 9. See also William Kiffin, To Mr. Thomas Edwards [A Public Challenge of a Sermon], n.p., 1645. This was Thomas Edwards, author of the controversial Gangraena; or a Catalogue and Discovery of Many Errours, Heresies, Blasphemies, and pernicious Practises of the Sectaries of this Time vented and acted in England in these four last years, London, 16 February 1646.
15. Tombes, Apology, 10.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid. John White, Infant Baptisme proved Lawfull by Scripture, London, 1644.
19. Stephen Marshall, B.D., A Sermon on the Baptizing of Infants, preached in the Abbey-Church at Westminster, at the Morning Lecture, appointed by the Honourable House of Commons, London. 1645. Tombes first read the sermon sometime in 1644.
20. Tombes, Apology, 10.
21. Ibid., 11.
22. Ibid., 11ff.
23. Ibid., 12.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., 13.
26. Ibid. The text of the accompanying introductory letter is included in the text, 13ff.
27. John Cotton, The Groundes and Endes of the Baptisme of the Children of the Faithfull, Boston, 1644. Part 3, Section 3, 42ff. Additional correspondence between Tombes and Cotton is housed at the American Antiquarian Society, Salisbury Street, Worcester, MA. These exchanges show the mid-seventeenth century interdependence between England and her colonies. The intellectual life in England had consequences for Colonial America. See also, Baxter, Saint’s Rest, Introduction, where he appeals to certain miraculous births in New England as a sign of God’s judgment on “Anabaptists.”
28. Tombes, Apology, 14.
29. Ibid., 15.
30. John Tombes, Two Treatises and an Appendix to them Concerning Infant-Baptisme, The former Treatise being an Exercitation presented to the Chair-man of a Committee of the Assembly of Divines. The later an Examen of the Sermon of Mr Stephen Marshall, about Infant-Baptisme, in a letter sent to him, London, 1645. The Appendix was a short work to show Colossians 2:11, 12 “proves not Infant-Baptisme.”
31. Thomas Bakewell, A Justification of Two Points now in Controversy with the Anabaptists concerning baptism; with a briefe answer to Master Tombes argument, in his Exercitation about Infants baptisme. Also a briefe answer to Captaine Hobsons arguments in his Falacy of Infants baptisme, London, 1646. Although the title page has only T. B. to denominate the author, Wing attributes the work to Bakewell. This is uncertain. The arguments addressed are closer to the concerns of Thomas Bedford, yet the printer is the same as Bakewell used on other occasions within the same decade. Neither Tombes, nor Hobson, engage this work – an anomalous reaction by Tombes. Bakewell wrote this as “a briefe Answer to Master Tombes twelve doubtful Arguments against it in his Exercitation about Infants’ Baptisme.”
32. John Geree, M.A. Late of Tewkesbury, Vindiciae Paedobaptismi: or a vindication of infant baptism in a full answer to Mr. Tombs his twelve arguments alleaged against it in his Exercitation and whatever is rational in his answer to Mr. Marshals sermon, London, 1646.
33. Nathaniel Homes, A Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants. In some animadversions upon Mr. Tombes his ex-exercitations about infant-baptisme, London, 1646.
34. Steven Marshall, B.D., A Defence of Infant-Baptism: in Answer to two Treatise, and an Appendix to them concerning it; Lately published by Jo. Tombes. Wherein that Controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the Apostles dayes, until the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The Arguments for it from the holy Scripture maintained, and objections against it answered, London, 1646.
35. John Saltmarsh, The Smoke in the Temple. Wherein is a designe for peace and reconciliation of believers of the several opinions of these lines about ordinances, to a fore bearance of each other in love, and meeknesse, and humility, etc. With one argument for liberty of conscience, etc., London, 1646.
36. John Ley, Prebendary of Chester, Light for Smoak, or a ...reply to Smoke in the Temple, London, 1646.
37. William Hussey, of Chislehurst, An Answer to Mr. Tombes, His special Examination of Infants-Baptisme, London, 1646.
38. Thomas Blake, Mr. Blakes Answer to Mr. Tombes his letter. In Vindication of the birth-priviledge or covenant holinesse of beleevers and their issue, together with the right of infants to baptisme, London. 1646. The work included prefaces by Edmund Calamy and Richard Vines. From the content of this work, Blake was responding to the letter previously mentioned as Tombes’ fourth unpublished work—the one page letter of forty lines in quarto. Blake is misattributed as the author of A Moderate Answer to these Two Questions, 1. Whether ther be sufficient Ground in Scripture to Warrant the Conscience of a Christian to present his infants to the sacrament of Baptism: 2. Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receive the sacrament in a mixt Assembly, London, 1645 by Alexander Gordon in “Blake, Thomas”, DNB, Vol. II, 642, and Donald Wing in Short Title Catalogue 1641–1700, MLA, New York, 1972, 177. The title page simply attributes the work to T.B. Holifield argues for Thomas Bedford as the proper source of this work in the appendix of The Covenant Sealed, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1974, 231. Bedford does not engage Tombes directly.
39. The full title is: An Apology or Plea for the Two Treatises, and Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme; Published Decemb. 15, 1645. Against the unjust charges, complaints, and censures of Doctor Nathaniel Homes, Mr Iohn Geree, Mr Stephen Marshall, Mr John Ley, and Mr William Hussey; together with a Postscript by way of reply to Mr Blakes answer to Mr Tombes his letter, and Mr Edmund Calamy, and Mr Richard Vines Preface to it. Wherein the principall heads of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism are handled, and the insufficiency of the writings opposed to the two Treatises manifested, London, 1646.
40. Tombes, Apology, inside cover.
41. T. L. Underwood, “John Tombes” in Greaves and Zaller, Biographical Dictionary, Vol. III, 245ff.
42. Stephen Marshall, John Tombes, Praecursor, or a Forerunner to a large Review of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism; wherein many things both Doctrinall and personal are cleared: about which Mr. Richard Baxter, In a Book Mock-titled Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church Membership and Baptism} hath Darkened the Truth, London, 1652. First unnumbered page in the initial dedication.
43. Robert Baillie, Anabaptism, the True Fountain of Independency, Antinomy, Brownisme, and Familisme, and most of the other Errours, which for the time doe trouble the Church of England, Unsealed, London, 1647.
44. John Tombes, An Addition to the Apology For the two Treatises concerning Infant-Baptisme, Published December 15. 1645. In which the Author is vindicated from 21. unjust Criminations in the 92. page book of Robert Baillie Minister of Glasgow, Intitled Anabaptisme. And sundry material points concerning the Covenant, Infants-interest in it, and Baptisme by it, Baptism by an unbaptized person, Dipping, Erastianism, and Church-Government, are argued, in a letter (now enlarged) sent in September 1647. to him, by..., London, 1652.
45. Ibid., 38.
46. Ibid., fourth unnumbered page.
47. William Hussey, A 1st Provocation of Master Tombes to make good his generall charge against Mr. W. Husseys satisfaction to his scepticall exercitation, London, 1647.
48. John Geree, Vindiciae Vindicarum; or a vindication of Infant Baptism from the exceptions of Mr. Harrison in his Paedobaptism Oppugned and from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, London, 1646.
49. Tombes came to Bewdley because, as a chapel-at-ease, he would not be required to baptize.
50. Benjamin Coxe, Some Mistaken Scriptures Sincerely Explained, in a letter, to one infected with Pelagian errours, London, 1643. In the preface, Coxe gives the context for the work as being his imprisonment after a public disputation on baptism with Baxter. Whether or not the dispute led to Coxe’s incarceration is a matter of historical interpretation. Whether or not Baxter is the “friend” to whom Coxe wrote this brief work is also a disputable matter.
51. Tombes, Praecursur, 15ff. (Sect. VII). And, A Discussion of Mr. Richard Baxter’s Ten Reasons of his Practise of about Infant-Baptism, delivered in a Sermon at Beudley; on Colos. 2. 11. in Antipaedobaptism, Part Three. London. 1659. Tombes did not publish this reply for nine years as part of his final part of the comprehensive review. See also Richard Baxter, The true History of the Conception and Nativity of this Treatise: being the Authors Apology for his attempt of this unpleasant task in Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-membership and Baptism: being arguments prepared for (and partly managed in) the publick Dispute with Mr. Tombes at Bewdley on the first day of Jan. 1649. With a full reply to what he then answered, and what is contained in his sermon since preached, in his Printed Books, his M.S. on 1 Cor. 7. 14. which I saw, against Mr. Marshall, against these Arguments. With a Reply to his Valedictory Oration at Bewdley; and a corrective against his Antidote, London, 1656, Fourth Edition (First Edition, 1650), thirteenth unnumbered page. This can be found immediately after the twin letters to the Churches at Kidderminster and Bewdley. The fourth edition includes Baxter’s work, Plain Scripture Proof, and another ten smaller works. Pagination is standardized from page one of the main work.
52. T. L. Underwood, “Tombes, John” in Greaves and Zaller, Biographical Dictionary of British Radicals, 245.
53. Anthony Wood, from Tombes, John, in Athenae Oxonienses, new edition, 1813–20, found in the British Biographical Archive, London, K C Saur, microfilm plates 427, 428.
54. A Discourse of Infant-Baptism, By way of Dialogue, between Paedobapatsta, A Minister, for Infant Baptism. Antipaedobaptista, his Friend, against it. Aporeticus, An Ingenious Doubter, London, 1698, 54. This work is an honest attempt to deal with the lingering issues at the end of the seventeenth century. It also shows some adaptation on the part of the author to antipaedobaptist concerns. Therein is found a repudiation of the prejudicial use of alleged connections between Continental Anabaptists and Antipaedobaptists, 57ff. An example of this “copy’d” use of Tombes’ argumentation is found in Samuel Chandler and William Leigh. A Dialogue between a Paedo-Baptist, and an Anti-Paedo-Baptist: Containing the strength of Arguments Offered on both sides at the Plymouth Disputation: with The Addition of a few more Arguments, then ready to be offered, in Vindication of Infant-Baptism, London, 1699, 6ff.
55. John Tombes, An Antidote Against the venome of a Passage, in the 5th direction of the Epistle Dedicatory to the whole Book of Mr. Richard Baxter Teacher at Kederminster in Worcestershire, intitled, The Saints Everlasting Rest, containing a Satyricall invective against Anabaptists, London, 1650, 28. In the original minutes of the convocation in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, see section 4:9.
56. Baxter, Richard, The Saints Everlasting Rest, London, 1650. Sixth unnumbered page.
57. Tombes, Antidote, London, 1650.
58. Richard Baxter, Plain Scripture Proof, fourth edition, London, 1656, first edition, 1650.
59. Tombes, Praecursor, London, 1650.
60. Baxter, Plain Scripture Truth, fourth edition.
61. John Tombes. Antipaedobaptism, or No Plain nor Obscure Scripture Proof of Infants Baptism or Church Membership. Being the first part of the full review of the dispute about Infant Baptism...whereby the expositions and arguings ... for infant baptism by Mr. Stephen Marshall, Mr. John Geree, Mr. Baxter, Mr. T. Cobbet, Mr. T. Blake, Mr. J. Church; and the arguments of Mr. N. Stephens...are fully refuted, London, 1652.
62. Thomas Cobbet, A Just Vindication of the Covenant and Church-Estate of Children of Church-Members as also their right unto Baptisme: wherein such things as have been brought by divers to the contrary, especially by Ioh. Spilsbury, A.R., Ch. Blackwood, and H. Den are revides and answered: hereunto is annexed a refutation of a certain pamphlet styled The plain and wel-grounded treatise touching baptism, London, 1648.
63. Tombes, Addition, 2.
64. Henry Savage, Thesis Doctoris Savage nempe paedobaptismum esse licitum, confirmatio, contra refutationem mri Tombes, Oxford, 1655.
65. John Tombes, Refutatio Positionis ejusq; Confirmationis Paedobaptistmum esse licitum affirmantis ab Henrico Savage SS.T.D. Coll. Ball. in Comitioorum Vesperiis Oxon. Mense Julio, anni, 1652, London, 1653.
66. Thomas Blake, Three Scripture Texts, by John Tombes in the first part of his Antipaedobaptism solely handled and totally perverted, fully vindicated, London, 1653.
67. J[ohn] H[owe], of Lynn, diatribh peri paido-baptismou: or, a Consideration of Infant Baptism; wherein the grounds of it are laid down, and the validity of them discussed, and many things of Mr. Tombes about it scanned, etc., London, 1654.
68. John Cragge, M.A., of Lantilio-Pertholy, A Publick Dispute betwixt John Tombes respondent, John Cragge and H. Vaughan, opponents, touching infant baptism ... Also a sermon ... wherein the necessity of dipping is refuted, and infant baptism asserted. The frontispiece bears another title more popularly used in bibliographic information: The Anabaptists Anatomiz’d and Silenced in a Publick Dispute, London, 1654, reprinted 1741. Tombes’ name appears first in the title. Therefrom, the wrong implication for attribution has been made. The work should be attributed to Cragge. The purpose of the work is to promote paedobaptism. Tombes was an antipaedobaptist.
69. John Tombes, A Plea for Anti-paedobaptists against, the vanity and falshood of scribled papers, entitled, The Anabaptists Anatomiz’d and silenc’d in a publique dispute ... betwixt John Tombes, John Cragg, and Henry Vaughan, touching infant-baptism, London, 1654.
70. John Tombes, Anti-paedobaptism, or the Second Part Of the full Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant-Baptism: In which the invalidity of Arguments inferring a Duty from a positive Rite of the Old Testament concerning a positive Rite of the New, by reason of Analogy between them, is shewed; and the Argument against Infant-baptism, from Christs institution, Matth. 28. 19. the sayings and practise in the New Testament is made good against the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshall, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Thomas Cobbet, Mr. John Cotton, Dr. Nathaniel Homes, Mr. Robert Bailee, Dr. Daniel Featley, Mr. John Brinsley, Mr. Cuthbert Sydenham, Dr. Henry Hammond, Mr. Thomas Fuller, and others, London, 1654.
71. Marshall, Defence.
72. Baxter, subsequent editions of Plain Scripture Proof.
73. Blake, Three Scripture texts.
74. Robert Bailey [Baillie, or Bayley], The Disswasive from the Errours of the time vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. Cotton and Mr. Tombes, n.p., 1655.
75. Baillie, Disswasive, n.p. 1655.
76. Henry Hammond, D.D. The Baptizing of Infants Reviewed, and Defended from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, in Antipedobaptisme, London, 1655.
77. Savage, Thesis.
78. John Cragg[e], The Arraignment and Conviction of Anabaptism; or a Reply to Master Tombes his Plea for Anti-paedobaptists, London, 1656.
79. James Nayler, The Foot yet in a Snare... discovered in answer to John Tombes. London, 1656. John Tombes in John Tolderuy, The Foot out of the Snare, or a Restoration of the Inhabitants of Zion into their place, London, 1655.
80. Samuel Winter, The summe of diverse sermons preached in Dublin, before the Lord Deputie Fleetwood ... wherein the doctrine of Infant-Baptism is asserted and the main objections of Mr. Tombes, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Blackwood and others Answered, London, 1656.
81. Protector and Council, An Ordinance appointing commissioners for approbation of public preachers, London, 1654.
82. Anthony Sadler, Inquisitio Anglicana: or the disguise discovered, showing the proceedings of the commissioners at White Hall, for the approbation of ministers, in he examinations of A. Sadler, London, 1654. Sadler was eventually placed after the Restoration of the Monarchy.
83. John Tombes, Anti-Paedobaptism: or the Third Part. Being, A full Review of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism. In which, the Arguments for Infant-Baptism from the Covenant and Initial Seal, Infants Visible Church-membership, Antiquity of Infant-Baptism, are repelled. and the Writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. John Geree, Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Thomas Cobbet, Dr, Nathaniel Homes, Mr. John Drew, Mr Josiah Church, Mr. William Lyford, Dr. Daniel Featley, Mr. John Brinsley, Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham, Mr. William Carter, Mr. Samuel Rutherford, Mr. John Crag, Dr. Henry Hammond, Mr. John Cotton, Mr. Thomas Fuller, Mr John Stalham, Mr. Thomas Hall, and others, are examined; and many points about the Covenants, and Seals, and other Truths of weight, are handled, London, 1657.
84. John Tombes, Felo de Se. or Mr. Richard Baxters Self-destroying; Manifested In twenty Arguments against Infant-Baptism, Gathered out of his own Writing, in his Second Disputation of Right to Sacraments, London, 1659.
85. Baxter quoted by Tombes in Felo de Se, A2.
86. John Tombes, A Short Catechism about Baptism, London, 1659.
87. John Tombes, A Serious Consideration of the oath of the King’s Supremacy: wherein these six propositions are asserted. I. That some swearing is lawful. 2. That some promissory oaths are lawful. 3. That a promissory oath of allegiance and due obedience to a king is lawful. 4. That the King in his realm, is the onely supreme governour over all persons. 5. That the King is the governour of the realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things, or causes, as temporal. 6. That the jurisdictions, priviledges, preeminences, and authorities in that oath, may be assisted and defended, London, 1660.
88. A.J. Gordon, “Tombes, John (1603?-1676)” in Dictionary of National Biography, Smith, Elder and Co., London, 1909, Vol. XIX, 930, col. 2. Lord Clarendon introduced Tombes to Charles II in 1664.
89. John Tombes, Romanism Discussed; or an answer to the first nine articles of H[enry] T[urberville] his manual of controversies, London, 1660.
90. John Tombes, True Old-Light Exalted above pretended new-light; a Treatise of Jesus Christ, as He is the light that enlightens every one that comes into the World. Against the Quaker, Arminian, etc..., London, 1660.
91. Richard Baxter in Tombes, True Old Light, ninth page of preface.
92. Ibid., tenth page of preface.
93. John Tombes, A Just Reply to the Books... of Mr. Wills, and Mr. Blinman: in a letter, London, 1675.
94. H. Wills. An Essay tending to issue the controversie about Infant Baptism, London, n.d.
95. Richard Baxter, More Proofs of Infants Church-membership and Consequently their Right to Baptism: Or a Second Defence of Our Infant Rights and Mercies. In Three Parts. The first is, The plain Proof of God’s Statute, or Covenant for Infants Church-membership from the Creation, and the Continuation of it till the Institution of Baptism; with the Defence of the Proof against the Frivolous Exceptions of Mr. Tombes. And a Confutation of Mr. Tombes his Arguments against Infants Church-membership…, London, 1675.
96. Baxter, More Proof, Title page.
97. Richard Baxter, Review of the State of Christian Infants. Whether they should be entered in Covenant With God by Baptism, and be Visible Members of His Church, and have any Covenant-Right to Pardon and Salvation? Or whether Christ, the Saviour of the World, hath shut all Mankind out of his Visible Kingdom, and Covenant-Rights and Hopes, till they come to Age? And whether he did so from the beginning of the world, or after his Incarnation? Occasioned by the Importunity of Mr. E. Hutchinson, (and of Mr. Danvers, and Mr. Tombes, (who called him to this review in order to his Reaction. An Impartial Reading is humbly requested, of those Dissenters who would not be found Despisers of holy Truth, not such as judge before they hear, London, 1676
98. Part II, to be published in RBTR II:1, January 2005, will uncover some of Tombes’ antipaedobaptist arguments.