Antipædobaptism, 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: containing an ample disquisition of the ingrassing, Rom. II. 17. the promise, Acts 2. 39. the holinesse of children, I Cor. 7.14. Whereby the expositions of those texts, and arguings thence for infant-baptism by Mr. Stephen Marshall, Mr. John Geere, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. Thomas Cobbet, Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Josiah Church; and the arguments of Mr. Nathaniel Stephens for the convertiblity of a word of promise and command, are fully refuted. By John Tombes, B.D.

The Contents.

Sect. 1. About stating the point in difference concern∣ing the ingraffing, Rom. 11. 17. what it is.

Sect. 2. the arguments in my Apology to prove the in∣graffing, Rom. 11. 17. to be by giving faith according to E∣lection, are vindicated from Mr. Gerees Answers.

Sect. 3. The Objections of Mr. Geree against my inter∣pretation of the ingraffing, Rom. 11. 17. are answered.

Sect. 4. Mr. Gerees Arguments for Infant-baptism from Rom. 11. 11. &c. are answered.

Sect. 5. A Digression about the nullity of connexion be∣tween the Covenant and Initial seal (as it is called) and the invalidity of proof for it from Gen. 17. 7. 9. Act. 2. 38, 39. the mistakes about which texts are shewed, and Mr. Ste∣phens his arguments for the convertibilty (as he speaks) of a word of promise and command, are answered upon occasion of Mr. Gerees words.

Sect. 6. That the breaking off, Rom. 11. 17. was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning Infants visible Church∣membership, as Mr. Baxter conceives.

Sect. 7. That the words Rom. 11. 20. of breaking off by unbelief, prove not that believers children have visible Church-membership and title to the Initial seal (as it is cal∣led.)

Sect. 8. Mr. Baxters arguments are answered, whereby he attempts to prove that the breaking off and graffing Rom. 11. 17. 20. 24. are meant of the visible Church as such.

Sect. 9. Mr. Baxters arguments for Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed, from Rom. 11. 17. 19. 2••, ••6, ••7. in ch. 9, 10, 11. of the first part of his Plain Scripture proof &c. are answered.

Sect. 10. Animadversions on the second chapter of the se∣cond part of Mr. Cobbets Just Vindic. whereby is answered what he further endeavours to draw from Rom. 11. 16. &c. for Infant-baptism.

Sect. 11. Of the agreements and differences between me and Mr. Marshal concerning the sanctification and holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14.

Sect. 12. Mr. Marshalls first argument against my ex∣position of 1 Cor. 7. 14. as meant of matrimonial sanctificati∣on and holiness, from the use of the words [sanctified and ho∣ly] is largely answered.

Sect. 13. The sixth and seventh of Mr. Marshals additi∣onall arguments about the words [sanctified and holy 1 Cor. 7. 14.] are answered.

Sect. 14. Mr. Marshals second argument, to prove the sanctification 1 Cor. 7. 14. to be meant of instrumental san∣ctification and holiness federal, because the person in whom the other is said to be sanctified was a believer, is answered.

Sect. 15. Mr. Marshals fifth and eighth arguments, being the last of his additionalls against my exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. in that the sanctification and holiness could not be except one were a believer, are answered

Sect. 16. The third argument of Mr. Marshall, urging that by my exposition the Apostle is made to prove the same by the same is answered.

Sect. 17. Mr. Marshalls fourth argument, that after my exposition the Apostles resolution had not taken away the doubt of the Corinthians from the fact in Ezra 9, & 10. is answered.

Sect. 18. The insufficiency of what Mr. Marshal, Mr. Geree, Mr. Blake bring to avoid my exception, that it is without

proof supposed, that the doubt answered 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14 did arise from reading the fact Ezra 9, & 10. and not from the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. is manifested.

Sect. 19. My objections against instrumentall sanctifica∣tion, that it fits not the case of persons disabled for procrea∣tion, that it makes the Argument of the Apostle to be from a future contingent, that the act of producing a holy seed is not from any special designation by God, are vindicated from Mr. Marshalls answers.

Sect. 20. That the proposition included in the consequence of the Apostles argument 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not true of instru∣mental sanctification and federall holiness, but true onely of matrimonial.

Sect. 21. It is at large shewed that neither Mr. Marshall in his Serm. nor his Defence, hath answered the objection from the inconsistency of the Apostles included proposition with his exposition.

Sect. 22. The objection in my Apology, that according to Mr. Marshalls exposition, the Apostles reason would prove a fornicatrix believing may live with an infidel for∣nicator▪ as well as a maried wife with her husband, is not an∣swered by Mr Geree or Mr. Church.

Sect. 23. Mr. Baxters premised grants, various exposi∣tions, distinctions, and explications of the words [san∣ctified and holy] are examined.

Sect. 24. Mr. Baxters first argument from the constant use of the word [holy] to prove that 1 Cor. 7. 14. it is under∣stood of a state of separation to God intituling to visible Church-membership, is answered.

Sect. 25. That if holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. had allusion to Ezra 9. ••. it were better intelligible of legitimation than of federal holiness, contrary to Mr. Baxters second argument.

Sect. 26. Mr. Baxters 3d. argument, that if my sense stand, Pagans being legitimate might be termed holy, is answe∣red.

Sect. 27. Mr. Baxters 4th. argument, that the unbelie∣ving husbands sanctifying cannot be meant in respect of law∣full continuance in mariage-use, is answered.

Sect. 28. Mr. Baxters 5th. argument, that the Apostle by my exposition should not argue from a thing more known, is answered.

Sect. 29. Mr. Baxters 6th argument, that the Corinthi∣ans doubt was not that their continuance was fornication, but impiety, is answered.

Sect. 30. Mr. Baxters 7th. argument, from the prefer∣ring a proper and usual sense before an abusive, is answered.

Sect. 31. Mr. Baxters 8th argument, from the impurity of all things to an unbeliever, is answered.

Sect. 32. Mr. Baxters 9th hinted argument from this, that the Apostle makes the childrens uncleanness an horrid consequence, is answered.

Sect. 33. My speech, that it is not enough for Mr. Bax∣ter to overthrow my sense except he prove his own, is vindica∣ted, & the interpretation of the holiness 1 Cor. 7. 14. to be real qualitative holinesse which certainly saves, is overthrown.

Sect. 34. That the terms [sanctifyed and holy] are often used in a sense different from Mr Marshals and Mr Baxters descriptions, and agreeably to my explication:

Sect. 35. The objection is made good, that according to the Apostles words, as expounded by Mr Baxter, no Infant is to be baptized, sith the reality of the parents faith is not known.

Sect. 36. That Mr Baxter while he seeks to relieve Mr Marshall against my objection [that by his exposition of the Apostle might be concluded the lawfull living together of for∣nicators,] vents many wild conceits, and falls into gross ab∣surdities.

Sect. 37. The objection, that in Mr Baxters sense chil∣dren may be holy who are born of infidels, is vindicated from Mr Baxters answer, and the nakedness of Mr Baxters opini∣on about that point, is discovered.

p. 217. l. ulr. d. it. p. 218. l. 1. d. this. p. 225. l. 13. r. denie. p 234. l. r. in. p. 238. l. 5. r. Scheibler. 239. l. 37 r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p, 241. l. 31. r. Magus p. 244. l. 9. agrees. p. 246. l. 6. r. they had. p. 250. l. 13. r. whereas p. 252. l. 15. r. yee.