Anti-pædobaptism, 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 refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes.

Title

Anti-pædobaptism, 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 refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes.

Author

Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.

Publication

London :: Printed by E. Alsop,

1657.

Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms

Infant baptism -- Early works to 1800.

Baptists -- Controversial literature.

Link to this Item

https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A62864.0001.001 content_copy

Cite this Item

"Anti-pædobaptism, 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 refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A62864.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed May 7, 2025. content_copy

Contents

• title page
• TO THE PARLIAMENT OF THE Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland.
• TO The christian Reader.
• The Contents.
• ERRATA.
• Books published by the Author.
• SECT. I. The second Argument against Infant-Baptism, that it is will-worship, is con∣firmed.
• SECT. II. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove Infant-baptism from Gen. 17. are Examined.
• SECT. III. Master Drew's Argument for Infant-baptism from Gen. 17. is examined, and it is shewed, there is not the same reason of Infant-Baptism, as of Infant-Circumcision.
• SECT. IV. The Covenant, Genesis 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. was a mixt Covenant.
• SECT. V. Acts 2.38, 39. Proves not either the identity of Covenant now with that to A∣braham, Gen. 17.7. as it comprehends his natural seed, nor the connexion be∣tween it and Baptizability.
• SECT. VI. The Arguments of Master Josias Church in his Divine warrant for Infant-bap∣tism, from their being judged in the promise, is answered.
• SECT. VII. Bare judgement of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize.
• SECT. VIII. Acts 2.38, 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance.
• SECT. IX. Infants are not proved by Mr. Church, to be of the visible Church Christian.
• SECT. X. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship, entitles them not to Baptism.
• SECT. XI. The Agreements between Circumcision and Baptism, do not justifie Infant-baptism, and the validity of sealing Infants with an initial seal now, is shewed to be null.
• SECT. XII. Doctor Featley his argument for Infant-baptism from the Covenant, is exa∣mined.
• SECT. XIII. The Arguments of Mr. William Lyford, from the Covenant for infant-baptism are examined.
• SECT. XIV. The Arguments of Mr. Stalham, Mr. Brinsley, Mr. Hall, and a nameless Au∣thor, from the Covenant for infant-baptism, are examined.
• SECT. XV. 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 Co∣venant did not intitle to circumcision, nor is it proved it doth now to Bap∣tism.
• SECT. XVI. That the Gospel-Covenant is not extended to infants of believers, as such.
• SECT. XVII. Mr. Cottons, The Assemblies, and London Ministers way of arguing for In∣fant-baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision, is recited, and the methode of the future progress in the Review, expressed.
• SECT. XVIII. Mr. Marshalls reply to the first section of the third part of my Examen about the connexion between the Covenant, and seal, is reviewed.
• SECT. XIX. Mr. Blakes exceptions against my Speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant, and initial seal, are refelled.
• SECT. XX. The exceptions which in the first part of my Review, sect. 5. are made against the proof of connexion between the covenant and initial seal, are confirmed a∣gainst Mr. Blake, vindic. foed. 42. ch. sect. 3.
• SECT. XXI. The ten Exceptions of the first part of my Review against Paedobaptists exposi∣tion and allegation of Acts 2.38, 39. for the connexion between Covenant and seal are vindicated from Master Blakes answer, Vindic. Foederis, ch. 37, 43.
• SECT. XXII. Animadversions on ch. 2. part. 1. of Master Thomas Cobbet his just vindi∣cation touching the explication of Acts 2.38, 39. in which his exposition is shew∣ed to be vain and mine justified.
• SECT. XXIII. The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38, 39. against the connexion between co∣venant-interest and baptism-right, and infant-baptism are vindicated from Master Cobbets answers.
• SECT. XXIII. Master Sidenhams notes on Acts 2.39. in his exercitation ch. 5. are consider∣ed.
• SECT. XXV. Mr. Marshal's Reply to my Examen about his first Conclusion is reviewed, and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixt, and that Gentile self justicia∣ries 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. XXVI. The mixture of the Covenant Gen. 17. as by me asserted is vindicated from Mr. Blake's Exceptions, Vind. Foed. c. 26.
• SECT. XXVII. 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 Abraham's seed and in Covenant, is shewed.
• SECT. XXVIII. It is proued from Luke 1.54, 55. and 19.9. John 8.39. Rom. 4.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Gal. 3.7, 16, 29. and 4.28. Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Mat. 3.9. That the seed of Abraham to whom the promise as Evangelical is made, Gen. 17.7. are onely true believers or elect persons.
• SECT. XXIX. The Allegation of Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, Matth. 3.7, 8, 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7. as Evangelicall belongs, are true believers, or the elect onely, is vindicated from Mr. Blakes Answer Vindic. Foed▪ ch. 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch. 6.
• SECT. XXX. Of the meaning of Mr. M. his second Conclusion, the ambiguitie of which is shewed.
• SECT. XXXI, Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about Sacraments, being seals of the covenant, and the severall sealings of them.
• SECT. XXXII. The exceptions in my Examen, part 4. Sect. 5. against Mr Ms speeches about the covenant and conditionall sealing, are made good against Mr. M. and Mr. Blake.
• SECT. XXXIII. That it is no error as Mr Baxter calls it, but a Truth, That the Covenant of grace is made onely to the elect.
• SECT. XXXIX. Mr Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or covenant is not it that i sealed in Baptism and the Lords Supper.
• SECT. XXXV. My speeeh about Gods sealing to none but believers, is cleared from Mr Bax∣ters Objections.
• SECT. XXXVI. Christianity is not by Birth, or the Church, nor the Church at Civill Corporations, as Mr. M. his equivocation in the use of the term Covenant of grace.
• CHAP. XXXVII. That the promise Gen. 17.7. proves not an externall priviledge of visible Church∣membership, and initiall seal to infants of Gentile believers, as Mr. M. asserts
• SECT. XXXVIII. Animadversions on the third Chapter of the first part of Mr. T. Cobbes Jus Vindic. Sect. 1, 2, 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church-Covenant and externall privileges of the covenant of grace are refelled.
• SECT. XXXIX. Animadversions on Sect: 4. of the same Chapter: whereby the Coceits of Mr. C about external being in the Covenant of grace are shewed to be vain.
• SECT. XL. Animadversions on Sect. 5. of the same Chapter, shewing that Mr. C. his supposed visible interest in Gods covenant is not the rule in baptizing.
• SECT. XLI. Sect. 41. Animadversions on the sixth sect. of the same ch: shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members, no parents profession of faith unites chil∣dren to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism.
• SECT. XLII. Animadversions on Sect. 7: of the same chap. shewing that the body of the Jew∣ish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external Interest therein.
• SECT. LXIII. That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Works, and not of Evange∣lical grace, and that the Iewish Church and State were but one body.
• SECT. XLIV. Animadversions on the ninth Section of the same Chapter, in which the Covenant-interest externall and Ecclesiastical of infants of inchurched believers is preten∣ded, not proved to be Gospel, in which his allegations of Deut. 30.6, &c. Gen. 17.8. Luke 19 9. Deut. 29.10, &c. Ezek. 16.1, &c. Gen. 9.25.26. and other places are examined.
• SECT. XLV. Mr C. his Answers to objections against his seventh Conclusion, part. 1. c. 3. Sect. 9. of his Just Vindic. are considered, and Mr. Bl. his Tenent concerning the generall term of a Covenant, that it is a mutuall agreement.
• SECT. XLVI. The 27, 28, 29 Chapters of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Faeder is are examined, and it is shewed, That he hath not proved the Covenant of Grace in Gos∣pel times to admit or to be made to any but the Elect regenerate.
• SECT. XLVII. Mr. Bls. Vindic. Fed. Ch. 34. Concerning the stating the question of the Birth-priviledge of the issue of elievers, is examined; and his Obje∣ctions against my stating it removed.
• SECT. XLVIII. The 35th. and 37th. Chapters of Mr. Bls. Vind. Faed. are examined, and his Arguments concluding the natural issue of believers to be taken into Covenant, are answered.
• SECT. XLIX. The 4th▪ Ch. of Mr. Baxters, Part 1. of Plain Scripture-proof, &c. is examined, his conceits about Infants visible Church membership and their admission considered; and sundry Animadversions made on that Chapter.
• SECT. L. The fifth Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture proof &c. Part. 1. is exami∣and the texts Gal. 4.1, &c. Matth. 28.19. cleered so as to prove infants now no visible Church-members.
• SECT. LI. The arguments from the altering of the Jewish Church constitution and call, the ceasing of the High Priest, &c. to prove Infants now no visible Church-members are made good against Mr. Bs. 5th. Ch. plain, &c. part. 1.
• SECT. LII. It is proved, that infants were not reckoned to the visible Church Christian in the primitive times, nor are now.
• SECT. LIII. Letters between me and Mr. B. are set down concerning the Law and Or∣dinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, which he asserts, whereby the point is stated.
• SECT. LIV. Infants were visible Churchmembers onely in the Congregation of Israel.
• SECT. LV. Infants of the Jewes were not visible Churchmembers, by Promise, or Pre∣cept; as Mr. B. teacheth.
• SECT. LVI. That the People, and thereby the Infants of the Hebrews, were made vi∣sible Churchmembers by a transeunt fact, is made good against Mr: Bs. exceptions.
• SECT. LVII. Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, is not proved from Gen. 1.26, 27, 28. or Gen. 3.15.
• SECT. LVIII. Infants visible Churchmembership is not proved by the Law of Nature
• SECT. LIX. The sayings of Adam, Eve, Noah, concerning Cain, Seth, Shem, the term sons of God, Gen. 6.2. prove not Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Church∣membership unrepealed.
• SECT. LX. Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, is not pro∣ved from Gen. 12. or 17. or 22.
• SECT. LXI. Covenants, promises, and speeches in the Old Testament, of Israel, the righ∣teous, prove not Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Churchmembership un∣repealed.
• SECT. LXII. M. Bs. 9th. and 10th. Qu. about the repealableness and repeal of his ima∣gined Law of infants visible Churchmembership, and his eight addi∣tionals are answered.
• SECT. LXIII. Mr. Bs. ten Calumniatory questions, and Conclusion of his Letter, are an∣swered.
• SECT. LXIIII. My Answer in the Dispute and Sermon to the argument of Mr. B. of Bap∣tism, part 1. ch. 6. about the non-repeal of infants Churchmembership, because neither in justice nor mercy, is vindicated.
• SECT. LXV. Mr. Bs. Argum. from Matth. 23.37. Revel. 11.15. for infants visible Churchmembership Ch. 12, 13. are answered.
• SECT. LXVI. Mr. Bs. 9th, 10th, 11. Arg. concerning infants better condition in the N. T. in his 14th, 15th, 16th, Chapters part. 1. of Bapt. to prove their visible Churchmembership, are answered.
• SECT. LXVII. Mr. Bs. 12th. arg. ch. 17. part 1. of Baptism, from Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. is answered, and my answers vindicated.
• SECT. LXVIII. Neither from Rom. 4.11. nor by other reason hath Mr. B. proved, ch. 18, 19. part. 1. of Baptism, That Infant Churchmembership was partly natural, partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith.
• SECT. LXIX. Mr. B. ch. 20. by his 15th. arg. from infants being once members in the universal visible Church, hath not proved their visible Churchmembership unreapealed.
• SECT. LXX. Mr. Bs. 16th, and 17th. arg from the promise of mercy, Exod. 20.6. and of blessing, Psal. 37.26. are answered.
• SECT. LXXI. Mr. Bs. 18th. arg. from the priority of infants churchmembership before Cir∣cumcision. His 19th. from Gods proneness to mercy: His 20th. from bles∣sing and cursing, Deut. 28. are answered.
• SECT. LXXII. Mr. Bs. 21th. Arg. ch 26. from the absurdity of my Doctrine making all infants to be members of the visible Kingdome of the Devil, is an∣swered.
• SECT. LXXIII. Mr. Bs. 22. arg. Ch. 27. that my doctrine leaves no ground of hope of sal∣vation of infants dying, is answered.
• SECT. LXXIIII. Mr. Bs. allegations, p. 76, 77, 78. shew not a stronger ground of hope of infants salvation, so dying, then mine: His 23d. Arg. ch. 28. his 25th. ch. 30. are answered.
• SECT. LXXV. My Arguments to prove the ingraffing Rom. 11.17. to be into the invi∣sible Church by giving faith, are vindicated from Mr. Bls. excep∣tions Vind. aed. chap. 38. and Mr. Sidenham's Exercit. chap. 8, 9.
• SECT. LXXVI. My sense of matrimonial holiness▪ 1 Cor. 7.14. is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions, Vindic. Faed. ch. 39. and Mr. Sydenhams Exir∣cit. ch. 7.
• SECT. LXXVII. Mr. William Carters attempt of proving the Christian Sabbath from Heb. 4.7, 9, 10. is shewed to be succesless, and so useless for proof of Infant Baptism.
• SECT. LXXVIII. 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 pa∣rents, is refuted.
• SECT. LXXIX. Neither did Circumcision seal Mr. Cs. additional Promise, nor was Abra∣ham thence termed Father of Believers.
• SECT. LXXX. Mr. Cs. conceit, as if Gen. 17.9. were a command in force to Abrahams spiritual seed in the N. T. is shewed to be vain.
• SECT. LXXXI. 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.
• SECT. LXXXII. Notwithstanding Mr. Cs. allegations of Acts 2.38, 39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11 16, Mark. 10.14. Acts 15.10. Matth. 28.19. the N. T. appear to be silent about Mr. Cs. additional promise, and infants Baptism.
• SECT. LXXXIII. Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision, as Mr. M. in his 4th. conclusion would have it.
• SECT. LXXXIV. The enlargement of our priviledges, proves not Infant Baptism as Mr. M. in his 5th. conclusion, would have it.
• SECT. LXXXV. Mr. Cobbers dictates, Just. Vindic. par. 2. ch. 1. touching childrens bap∣tismal right, are examined and refelled.
• SECT. LXXXVI. The 13th. and 14th. Chapters of Mr. Rutherfords first part of the Cove∣nant, are examined; and found to make nothing for Infant Bap∣tism.
• SECT. LXXXVII. The distractions in Germany and our present distractions, sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Cragge saith.
• SECT. LXXXVIII. Austins saying about Apostolical traditions is not to be rested upon, nor his testimony about the antiquity of Infant Baptism.
• SECT. LXXXIX. The testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Greek Church concerning In∣fant Baptism are examined, and my exceptions made good against Mr Cragge, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Homes, Mr. Marshal.
• SECT. LXXXX. The arguments to prove Infant Baptism an innovation Exam. pag. 9. are made good against Mr. Marshal, and Dr. Homes.
• SECT. LXXXXI. The testimonies of Tertullian for Infant Baptism, and Dr. Hammonds interpretation of chap. 39. de Anima, are examined with 1 Cor. 7.14.
• SECT. LXXXXII. Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from [hath been sanctified] for his sense of the fore part of 1 Cor. 7.14. is nullified, and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated.
• SECT. XCIII. Dr. Hammonds rendring [by] 1 Cor. 7.14. is reselled, and my rendring [to] justified.
• SECT. XCIV. It is shewed that Dr. Hammond hath no proof from 1 Cor. 7.16. for his sense of the fore-part of v. 14. Nor will his sense of Holy for Bap∣tized, agree with the Apostles argument, though his sense of the fore∣part of the v. were granted.
• SECT. XCV. Dr. Hammonds reasons from the terms holy and unclean for his sense of baptized or not baptized are refelled.
• SECT. XCVI. The Jewish custome of Baptism for initiation, was not the pattern of Chri∣stian Baptism; as Dr. Hammond would have it.
• SECT. XCVII. Matth. 28.19. Infants are excluded from being subjects of Baptism, not∣withstanding Dr. Hammonds pretensions.
• SECT. XCVIII. The testimonies of Cyprian, Augustin, and other Latin Fathers for Infant Baptism, are shewed to have come from their mistakes; and the evi∣dences why the antiquity of Infant Baptism should not be deemed such as is pretended, are vindicated.
• SECT. XCIX. Mr. Crs. objections about my 9 untruths, his discourse about re-baptizing are refelled.
• SECT. C. The arguments of Mr. Cragg for infant Baptism are re-examined.