Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Table of contents
The Contents.
Sect. 1. THe second argument against infant Baptism that it is will worship is confirmed.
Sect. 2. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove infant Baptism from Gen 17. are examined.
Sect. 3. Mr. Drews argument for infant Baptism from Gen. 17. is examined, and it is shewed that there is not the same reason of infant Baptism as of infant Circumcision.
Sect. 4. The Covenant Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. was a mixt covenant.
Sect. 5. Acts 2.38, 39. proves not either the identity of covenant now with that to Abraham Gen. 17.7. as it comprehends his natural seed, nor the connexion between i… and …aptizability.
Sect. 6. The argument of Mr. Josia… Church in his Divine warrant for infant baptism, …om their being judged in the promise of propriety in God is answered.
Sect. 7. Bare judgement of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize.
Sect. 8. Acts 2.38, 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance.
Sect. 9. Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to bee of the visible Church Christian.
Sect. 10. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship intitles them not to baptism.
Sect. 11. The agreements between circumcision and baptism do not justifie infant baptism, and the validity of sealing infants with an initial seal is shewed to be null.
Sect. 12. Dr. Featley his argument for infant Baptism from the Covenant is examined.
Sect. 13. The arguments of Mr. William Lyford from the Covenant for infant baptism are answered.
Sect. 14. The arguments of Mr. Stalham, Mr. Brinsley, Mr. Hall, and a nameless Author from the Covenant for infant Baptism are examined.
Sect. 15. The dispute of Mr. John Geree about the extent of the Gospel Covenant to prove thence infant Baptism is examined, and it is shewed that interest in the covenant did not intitle to circumcision; nor is it proved it doth now to baptism.
Sect. 16. That the Gospel covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such.
Sect. 17. Mr. Cottons, the Assembly's, and London Ministers way of arguing for infant Baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited, and the method of the future progress in the Review expressed.
Sect. 18. Mr. Marshals reply to the first section of the 3d. Part of my Examen about the connexion between the Covenant and seal is reviewed.
Sect. 19. Mr. Blakes exceptions against my speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are refelled.
Sect. 20 The exceptions which in the first part of my Review or Antipaedobaptism sect. 5. are made against the proof of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal, are confirmed against Mr. Blake vind. faed. ch. 42. sect. 3.
Sect. 21. The ten exceptions of the first part of my Review …gainst Paedobaptists exposition and allegation of Acts 2.38, 39. for the connexion between the Covenant and seal, are vindicated from Mr. Blakes answer vindic. f…d. ch. 37, 43.
Sect. 22. Animadversions on ch. 2. part. 1▪ of Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just vindication touching the explication of Acts 2.38, 39. in which his exposition is shewed to be vain, and mine justified.
Sect. 23. The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38, 39. against the connexion between Covenant interest, and Baptism right, and infant Baptism are vindicated from Mr. Cobbets answers.
Sect. 24. Mr. Sidenham's notes on Acts 2.39. in his Exercitation ch. 5. are considered.
Sect. 25. Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his first connclusion is reviewed, and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixt, and that Gentile self-justitiaries, though reputed Christians, are not termed Abraham's seed, nor Gal. 4.29. proves it, and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right.
Sect. 26. The mixture of the Covenant as by me asserted, is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions vind. faed. ch. 26.
Sect. 27. The four first chapters of Mr. Sidenham's Exercitation are examined, and his vanity in his conceits about consequences proving infant baptism, the purity of the Covenant Gen. 17. infants of believers being Abrahams seed and in Covenant is shewed.
Sect. 28. It is proved from Luk. 1.54, 55. & 19.9. Joh 8.39. Rom. 4.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Gal. 3.7, 1…, 29. & 4.28. Rom 9.6, 7, 8. Matth 3.9. that the seed of Abraham to whom the pro…ise as Evangelical is made Gen. 17 7. are onelyonly true believers o… elect persons.
Sect. 29. The allega…ion of Rom. 9 6.7, 8. Matth. 3.7, 8, 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7. as Evangelical belong… are true believers or the elect onelyonly is vindicated from Mr. Blakes answer vindic faed. ch. 36. and Mr. Sidenhams E…ercitation ch. 6.
Sect. 30. Of the meaning of Mr. Marshals second conclusion, the ambiguity of which is shewed.
Sect. 31. Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace, and the several sealings of them.
Sect. 32. The exceptions in my Examen part. 4. sect. 5. against Mr. Marshals speeches about the Covenant and conditional sealing, are made good against Mr. Marshal and M… Blake.
Sect. 33. That it is no error, as Mr. Baxter calls it; but a truth, that the Covenant of grace is made onelyonly to the elect.
Sect. 34. Mr. Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or Covenant is not it that is sealed in baptism.
Sect. 35. My speech about Gods sealing to none but believers, is cleered from Mr. Baxters objections.
Sect. 36. Christianity is not by birth, nor the Church as civil corporations, Mr. Marshals equivocation in the use of the term [Covenant of grace.]
Sect. …7. That the promise Gen. 17.7. proves not an external priviledge of visible Churchmembership and initial seal to infants of Gentile believers, as Mr. Marshal asserts.
Sect. 38. Animadversions on the 3d. ch. of the first part of Mr. Thomas Cobbets Just vindic. sect. 1, 2, 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church Covenant and external priviledges of the Covenant of grace are refe…led.
Sect. 39. Animadversions on sect. 4th. of the same chapter, whereby the conceits of Mr. Cobbet about external being in the Covenant of grace, are shewed to be vain.
Sect. 40. Animadversions on sect. 5. of the same ch. shewing that Mr. Cobbets supposed visible interest in Gods Covenant is not the rule of baptizing.
Sect. 41. Animadversions on the 6th. sect. of the same ch. shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members, nor parents profession unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism.
Sect. 42. Animadversions on sect. 7…h. of the same ch. shewing that the body of the Jewish Church, even the worst of them, was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external interest therein.
Sect. 43. That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of works and not of Evangelical grace, and that the Jewish Church and state were but one body.
Sect. 44. Animadversions on the 9th. sect. of the same ch. in which the Covenant interest external and Ecclesiastical of infan…s of inchurched believers, is pretended not proved to be Gospel, and his allegations of Deut. 30.6, &c. Gen. 17.8. Luk. 19.9. Deut. 29.10, &c. Ezek. 16.1, &c. Gen. 9.25, 26. and other places are examined.
Sect. 45. Mr. Cobbets answers to objections against his 7th. concl. part. 1. c. 3. sect. 9. of his Just vindic. are considered, and Mr. Blakes tener concerning the general nature of a Covenant that it i… a mutual agreement.
Sect. 46. The 27, 28, 29. chapters of Mr. Blakes vind. faed. are examined, and it is shewed that he hath not proved the Covenant of grace in Gospel times to admit or to be made to any but the elect regenerate.
Sect. 47. Mr. Blakes vindic. faed. ch. 34. concerning the stating the question of the birth▪ privil…ge of the issue of believers is examined, and his objections against my stating it removed.
Sect. 48. The 35th, and 37th. chapters of Mr. Blakes vindic. faed. are examined, and his arguments concluding the natural issue of believers to be taken into covenant are answered.
Sect. 49. The 4th. ch. of Mr. Baxters part. 1. of plain Script. proof, &c. is examined, his conceits about infants visible Churchmembership and their admission considered, and sundry animadversions made on that chapter.
Sect. 50. The 5. ch. of Mr. Brs. plain scrip &c. p. 1. is examined, and the texts Gal. 4.1, &c. Mat. 28.19. cleered so as to prove infants now no visible churchmembers.
Sect. 51. The arguments from altering of the Jewish Church constitution and call, the ceasing of the High Priest, &c. to prove infants now no visible Churchmembers, are made good against Mr. Baxters 5. ch. plain, &c. part. 1.
Sect. 52. It is proved that infants were not reckoned to the visible Church Christian in the primitive times, nor are now.
Sect.53. Letters between me and Mr. Baxter are set down, concerning the Law and Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, which he as…rt…, whereby the point is stated.
Sect. 54. Infants were visible Churchmembers onelyonly in the Congregation of Israel.
Sect. 55. Infants of the Jews were not visible Churchmembers by promise or precept, as Mr. Baxter teacheth.
Sect. 56. That the people and thereby the infants of the Hebrews were made visible Churchmembers by a transeunt fact, is made good against Mr. Baxters exceptions.
Sect. 57. Mr Baxters Law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 1.26, 27, 28. or Gen. 3.15.
Sect. 58. Infants visible Churchmembership is not proved by the Law of Nature.
Sect. 59. The sayings of Adam, Eve, Noah, concerning Cain, Seth, Shem, the term [sons of God, Gen. 6.2.] prove not Mr. Baxters Law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed.
Sect. 60. Mr. Baxters Law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, is not proved from Gen. 12. or 17. or 22.
Sect. 61. Covenants, promises and speeches in the Old Testament of Israel, the righteous, prove not Mr Baxters Law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed.
Sect. 62. Mr. Baxters 9th. and 10th. questions about the repealableness and repeal of his imagined Law of infants visible Churchmembership, and his 8. additionals are answered
Sect. 63. Mr. Baxters ten calumniatory questions and the conclusion of his Letter are answered.
§ect. 64. My answer in the Dispute and sermon to the argument of Mr. Baxter of Baptism part. 1. ch. 6. about the nonrepeal of infants Churchmembership because neither in justice nor in mercy is vindicated.
§ect. 65. Mr. Baxters arguments from Matth. 23.37. Revel. 11.15. for infants visible Churchmembership ch, 12, 13. are answered.
§ect. 66. Mr Baxters 9th, 10th, 11th, concerning infants better condition in the N. T. in his 14th, 15, 16th, chapters part. 1. of Baptism, to prove their visible Churchmembership are answered.
§ect. 67. Mr. Baxters argument ch. 17. part. 1. of baptism, from Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. is answered, and my answers vindicated.
§ect. 68. Neither from Rom. 4.11. nor by other teason, hath Mr. Baxter proved ch. 18.19. part. 1. of baptism, that infant Churchmembership was partly na…ural, partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith.
§ect. 69. Mr. Baxter ch. 20. by his 15th. argument from infants being once members of the universal visible Church, hath not proved their visible Churchmembership unrepealed.
§ect. 70. Mr. Baxters 16th. and 17th. arguments from the promise of mercy Exod. 20.6. and of blessing Psal. 37.26. are answered.
Sect. 71. Mr. Baxters 18th. argument from the priori…y of infants Churchmembership before Circumcision, his 19th. from Gods mercy, his …0th. from blessing and cursing Deut. 28. are answered.
Sect. 72. Mr. Baxters 21. argument from the absurdity of my doctrine making all infants members of the Devils visible Kingdome is answered.
Sect. 73. Mr. Baxters 22. argument ch. …7. that my doctrine leaves no ground of hope of salvation of infants dying is answered.
Sect. 74. Mr. Baxters allega…ions p. 76, 77, 78. shew not a stronger ground of hope of infants salvation so dying then mine, his 23d. argument ch. 28. his 25 th. ch. 30. are answered.
§ect. 75. My arguments to prove the ingraffing Rom. 11.17. …o be into the invisible Church by giving faith, are vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions vindic. faed. ch. 38. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch. 8, 9.
Sect. 76. My sense of matrimonial holiness 1 Cor. 7.14. is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions vindic. faed. ch 39. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch. 7.
Sect. 77. Mr. William Carters attempt of proving the Christian Sabbath from Heb. 4.7, 9, 10. is shewed to be successeless, and so useless for proof of infant baptism.
Sect. 78. Mr. Carters exposition of Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. as if God promised to make every believer a blessing, so as to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents is refuted.
Sect. 79. Neither did Circumcision seal Mr. Carters additional promise, nor was Abraham thence termed father of believers.
§ect. 80. Mr. Carters conceit as if Gen. 17.9. were a command in force to Abrahams spiritual seed in the N. T. is shewed to be vain.
§ect. 81. The succession of Baptism to Circumcision, and their identity for substance to us is shewed to be unproved by Mr. Carter, Mr. Marshal, Mr. Church, Dr. Homes, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Cobbet, from Col. 2.11, 12. or elsewhere.
§ect. 82. Notwithstanding Mr. Carters allegations of Acts 2.38, 39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11.16, 24. Mark 10.14. Acts 15.10. Matth. 28.19. the N. T. appears to be silent about Mr. Carters additional promise and infants baptism.
§ect. 8…. Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision as Mr. Marshal in his 4th. concl would have it.
§ect. 84. The enlargement of our priviledges proves not infant baptism as Mr. Marshal in his 5th. concl. would have it.
§ect. 85. Mr. Cobbets dictates Just. vindic. part. 2. ch. 1. touching childrens baptismal right are examined and refelled.
§ect. 86 The 13th. and 14th. chapters of the first part of Mr. Rutherfords book of the Covenant are examined, and found to make nothing for infant baptism.
§ect. 87. The disasters in Germany and our present distractions sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Crag saith.
§ect. 88. Austins saying about Apostolical traditions is not to be rested upon, nor his testimony about the antiquity of infant baptism.
§ect. 89. The testimonies of the Ancient writers of the Greek Church concerning infant baptism are examined and my exception… made good against Mr. Crag, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Homes, Mr. Marshal.
Sect. 90. The arguments to prove infant baptism an innovation in the Greek Churches Exam. p. 9. are made good against Mr. Marshal, and Dr. Homes.
Sect. 91. The testimonies of Tertullian for infant baptism, and Dr. Hammonds interpretation of ch. 39. de Animâ, are examined with 1 Cor. 7.14.
Sect. 92. Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from [hath been sanctified] for his sense of the forepart of 1 Cor. 7.14. nullified, and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated.
Sect. 93. Dr. Hammonds rendring [by 1 Cor. 7.14▪] is refelled, and my …endring foreign [to] justified.
Sect. 94. It is shewed that Dr. Hammond hath no proof from 1 Cor. 7.16. for his sense of the forepart of v. 14. nor will his sense of holy for baptized agree with the Apostles argument, though his sense of the forepart of the verse were granted.
Sect. 95. Dr. Hammonds reasons from the terms holy and unclean for his sense of baptized or not baptized are refelled.
Sect. 96. The Jewish custome of baptism for initiation was not the pattern of Christian baptism, as Dr. Hammond would have it.
Sect. 97. Matth. 28.19. infants are excluded from being subjects of baptism notwithstanding Dr. Hammonds pretensions.
Sect. 98. The testimonies of Cy…rian, Augustin, and other Latin Fathers for infant baptism, are shewed to have come from their mist…kes, and the evidences why the antiquity of infant baptism should not be deemed such as is pretended, are vindicated.
Sect. 99. Mr. Crags objections about my nine untruths, his discourse about rebaptizing are refelled.
Sect. 100. The Arguments of Mr. Crag for infant baptism are re-examined.