Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Table of contents
The Contents.
SEct. 1. Of the reason and purport of this writing.
Sect. 2. That no good argument can be drawn from positive rites of the Old Testament to prove a Divine appointment in positive rites of the New, nor is it true which Mr. Baxter saith that infants admission into the Church is fully determined in the Old Testament.
Sect. 3. Mr. Blakes plea for arguments from analogy in meer positive rites of the Old Testament, and Mr. Baxters speech about infant admission as determined in it, are refelled.
Sect. 4. Mr. Baxters speech about the little sayd for Antipaedobaptism is vain, and his speech about the antiquity of infant-baptism, is very inconsiderate; and his speech about the difficulty and importance of the point in question▪ is examined.
Sect. 5. The first argument against infant-baptism from the institution Mat. 19. 28. Mark 16. 16. and the practise in the New Testament is urged.
Sect. 6. Mr. Blakes exception, against the major, that such institution or example as I require for inifant-baptism is unnecessary, is refelled.
Sect. 7. Mr. Marshalls exceptions that Matth. 28. 19. is not the institution of baptism, that onelyonly Disciples are not appointed to be baptized, that this was a rule onelyonly for a Church to be constituted, are refelled.
Sect. 8. The exceptions of Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Blake &c. against the arguing from the order of teaching afore baptizing, of Mr. Marshal, Mr. Hussey, &c. that baptizing is discipling, are refelled.
Sect. 9. The exception of Mr. Marshal, Mr. Blake, Mr. Cobbet, that nations are appointed to be baptized Matth. 28. 19. and so infants, is refelled.
Sect. 10. That infants of believers are not Disciples appointed to be baptized, Matth. 28. 19.
Sect. 11. Mr. Cottons allegations in his Dialogue ch. 1. to prove infants Disciples, are shewed to be insufficient.
Sect. 12. Mr. Baxters allegation of Acts 15. 10. to prove infants Disciples, is fully answered, and his arguments retorted.
Sect. 13. The arguments are vindicated which are brought to prove infants not meant by Disciples Acts 15. 10.
Sect. 14. Infants discipleship is not proved by Mr. Baxter from Lev. 25 41, 42. which speaks of the Israelites being Gods servants.
Sect. 15. That infants are not proved to be Christs Disciples from being subjects to Christ, Christians, belonging to Christ, Luke 9. 47, 48. Matth. 18. 5. Mark 9. 41.
Sect 16. Dr. Featlie and Mr. Stephens arguments from John 3 5. for infant-baptism, are answered, and baptism shewed not to be a cause of regeneration, and Mr. Cranfords words are considered.
Sect. 17. The 31. Cap. of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof, &c. is answered, and Mark 10. 13, 14, 15, 16. is shewed to make nothing for infants visible Church-membership and baptism, and his description of visible Church-membership is considered and his argument from Deut. 29. 10. shewed to be insufficient.
Sect. 18. The 41. Chap. of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Foeder: about Christs speech of little children Matth. 19. 14. is answered, and my sayings in my Postscript vindicated.
Sect. 19. Animadversions on Mr. Cobbets. Just Vindic. part. 1. ch. 4. and the arguings of Dr. Homes, Mr. Bailee, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Sidenham from the words and actions of Christ to little ones are answered.
Sect. 20. The practise of infant-baptism is not proved, Acts 16. 15. by baptizing an houshold, against Mr. Marshall, Dr. Homes Mr. Bailee, Mr. Cook, Mr. Sidenham, Mr. Fuller.
Sect. 21. That 1 Cor. 10. 2. proves not the practise of infant-baptism against Mr. Bailee, Mr. Cobbet, &c.
Sect. 22. Mr. Blakes argument from Gal. 4. 29. is answered.
Sect. 23. Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes their conjecture from Heb. 6. 2. to prove infant-baptism, is refelled.
Sect. 24. Dr. Hammond his way of proving infant-baptism from the Jews baptizing Proselytes children, is shewed to be vain.
Sect. 25. Dr. Hammonds elusion of Matth. 28. 19. alleged against infant-baptism▪ is refelled.
Sect. 26. Dr. Hammond neither from 1 Cor. 7. 14▪ nor from sayings of ancients proves the Apostles to have baptized infants.