ANTICHRIST unmasked in two Treatises.  
THE FIRST, An Answer unto two Paedobaptists, Dan. Featly, D. D. AND Stephen Marshall, B.D. The Arguments for Childrens baptism opened, and answered.  
The Second, The man of sin discovered in Doctrine; the root and foundation of Antichrist laid open.  
By Hen. den.  MATTH. 15.13. 
every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.  
Printed for the Edification of the Church, and Information of the world. 1645.   

To the Church of God, Grace, mercy, and Peace, &c.  
BRethren, beloved in the Lord: when the providence of our God had brought me a prisoner unto London, it cam to pass, that almost as soon as I came into Prison, there appeared a book entitled, The Dipper D●pt, &c. which when I had seen, I did presently hold myself in duty engaged to defend the truth, against the Adversary. The book of what temper it is, you know. But non licet nobis esse tam disertis, we may not give railing for railing: we have not so learned Christ: The Book it great, yet we found the whole strength of it to lie in ten Arguments, which are brought for the justification of Childrens baptism. I shall let all other things pass, as unworthy of an Answer, and address myself unto the answer of these onely. I did proffer to dispute the ten Arguments with him face to face; the first whereof we did debate, and account thereof is given: That we went no farther this is the reason: Some worshipful Gentlemen desiring to hear, I was very willing. But the Dr. would not admit of them, without an Order from the State; but would only debate the matter in private, and not in presence of( only) 4 auditors. And whilst these things were thus in debate, I received a Message from him by the mouth of a brother, that if I would writ, he would defend his Arguments. I have now written as briefly as I could, and yet as largely as the time would permit.  
I have joined with him Master marshals look concerning the baptism of Infants, which I had taken into my hands to examine) whilst I was a prisoner in Cambridge: And now finding these two to join together, in this one thing, and to use for the most part the same Arguments, I have joined them in the Answer. As for their Replies unto our Objections, I meddle not with, but leave them to others. It will be a sufficient task for me to show, that their building is upon the sand. I present this Treatise unto you, desiring your favourable correction, if in any thing I have swerved from the truth. If you should bee pleased to command my pen further, unto this or unto another more weighty subject; which calls for all our labours, viz. That the efficacy, and extent of Christs death may appear unto the world, which yet in grtat part lies hidden and obscure. I shall be willing to stoop unto your command herein, and endeavour to become your fervant in the Lords work: provided that you all assist me with a plentiful stream of your prayers, that wisdom may be given unto me, that so great a work may be carried and managed by the power of the Spirit of God, that gain sayers may have their mouths for ever stopped. Brethren farewell. The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all. Amen.  
From Prison in the Lord Peters house. Febr. 22. 1634. He that is most unworthy the name of a Brother, HEN. din.   

THE PAEDOBAPTISTS DAN. Featly, D.D. AND Stephen Marshall, B.D. oppugned: their Arguments opened, and answered.  
WHen the Woman clothed with the Sun, 
Rev. 12.  having the Moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve Stars upon her head, cried travailing in birth, ready to be delivered, Behold a wonder in Heaven, A great read Dragon having seven heads, and ten horns, and seven Crownes upon his heads: And his tail drew the third part of the Stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: And the Dragon stood before the woman, which was ready to be delivered, to devour her child, when she had brought it forth.  
Never was the Church of Christ in travail, ready to be delivered, of any truth formed in her womb, but as ready is that ten horned Dragon, to devour the fruit. When the Church travailed in pain, ready to be delivered, and to bring forth the Doctrine of justification in martin Luthers daves; wee see cardinal Cajetan in special, and the rest of the Scarlet Conclave, ready to swallow up both Mother and Issue, had not the Providence of God, carried the defenders of Truth upon Eagles wings, and mightily defended them.  
Our own experience teacheth us in these our dayes, wherein the shadows begin to vanish, and the night to pass away, and the Sun of righteousness to draw near unto our Horizon. How many adversaries do now bestir themselves, with policy and force, to keep us( if it were possible) in perpetual darkness, and to hinder the rising of the Sun in our hearts.  
Among the rest, the Church is now travailing, ready to be delivered, and to bring forth the Doctrine of the baptism of Water, raled up heretofore in an imitation of Poedobaptisme: The truth of the Ordinance and Institution of the Lord Iesus, lying covered with custom and practise, and a pretended face of and quity. The Lord hath been pleased at this day, to put into the hearts and tongues of some, to stand up in the defence of his truth,( against the daring Face of Error) who do now labour, ready to bee delivered. But we see how many Champions ready armed, are come forth with reviling speeches, and railing accusations, to dash the countenance of this new born Babe: and if this will not, to execute Imprisonment on the one hand, and wish and threaten Banishment, or worse on the other hand, unto those that shall dare to uphold, or maintain that which in conscience they are persuaded to be the truth.  
Amongst the multitude of opposers, I shall single out two, with whom I will adventure to encounter, to try the strength of their weapons, and force of their arms, though I fight upon very unequal terms.  
The first is Dr. Featly,( my fellow Prisoner) though not for the like Cause: who setteth on us with great might: As the read Dragon hath ten horns, so hath he ten several Arguments, whereby as with so many horns, he pusheth at the Truth to throw it down to the ground, and to set up his long practised baptism of Infants.  
The second is Master Marshall: The sound of whose name is enough to strike terror to a Prisoner, who cometh forth more like a lamb than the other, and hath two horns, or Arguments, wherewith he seeketh to strengthen himself, and to weaken his Adversaries. These twain, though the appearance of them be far different, yet is their voice the same: though he pretend but two, he useth indeed most of the other. I shall observe their own meth d, and first set down the state of the Question, and then weigh their Arguments in the balance as they lie in order.  
The state of the Question set down by Dr. Featly is this, page. 39.  
The children of such parents who profess Christian Religion, and are members of the visible Church, sith they are comprised within Gods Covenant made to the faithful Children of Abraham, and their seed, may and ought to receive the seal of that Covenant, which was Circumcision under the Law, but now is baptism.  
The state of the Question in Master Marshall, page. 3.  
Whether the Infants of such as were, or might have been styled believers and Saints in the Apostles dayes, and writings, are to bee admitted to the Sacrament of baptism?  
unto this state of the Question laid thus down by these two; I shall not speak any thing of the difference that I do believe is between them, lest I should seem rather to be contentious, than to search after the truth. Onely I shall desire, that the cunning craftiness of men, may bee a little discovered. Are not these the men, who have with ut any scruples for many yeares together, Baptized, or caused to be Baptized all Infants, of any parents what oever? And now being to justify their practise in the face of the world, do state the Question, whether the Infants of Saints are tub e Bapt●zed? I must tell you plainly the state of your Question is not of the same latitude with your Practise, but too narrow for it. What are all the Darents in Lambeth, action; Finching field become Saints now? not any couple of them unbelievers? will you now begin to low pillows under the Armeholes of your Parishioners? will you now begin to say of them, as those Conspirators did of the people, Num. 16 3. All the Congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them?  
Let me speak unto you the Parishioners, and Inhabitants of these places: Have you not sometimes heard from their Pulpits such words as these: That most of you are in a dimnable estate and condition? That there are not ten of you have the knowledge of God, on his Son Isus Christ? and yet now in the state of this Question, ye are Saints, believers, visible Mombers of a Church, &c. Surely what de ling is this? if you did appear to them so to be. They did ill to give you such Language. But if you were indeed other persons, and did appear unto them otherwise, they did evil to baptize your Infants. But I will say no more of the state of the Question: Now follow the Arguments.  

Argument 1.39. 
Dr. Featly.   
That which extends to all Nations, belongeth to children as well as men: for children are agreat part, if not the half of all Nations.  
But Christs command of Baptizing, extendeth to all Nations, Math. 28.19. go therefore teach all Nations, Baptizing them. And Mark 15.16. Preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth, and is Baptized shall be saved.  
Ergo, Christs Command of Baptizing, belongeth to Children; and they ought to bee Baptized an well as Men.  
page. 38. We know that in every Nation, 
Mr. Mar. shall.  the Children make a great part of the Nation, and are always included, under every administration to the Nation, whether promises, or threatenings; privileges, or burdens; mercies or judgements, unlesie they be excepted.  
Thus far it seems, that these two speak, both by one and the same Spirit: The Argument in both of them being one and the same. And how mighty soever, and invincible soever this argument seemeth, it will be found lighter than vanity, being full of deceit, and falsehood; neither of the Propositions being true. For the first, it is plainly denied: For something may extend to all Nations, which doth not belong to every particular person in the Nation, nor yet unto every condition of men in the Nation. For it is written, Gen. 22.18. In thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed. Now would not this be strange reasoning: That which extends itself to all Nations, must needs extend itself to the half or greater part of the Nations. But the blessing in the seed of Abraham extends itself to all Nations.  
Therefore the blessing extends itself to the half, or greater part of the Nations.  
If this bee granted, see what will follow. They that live and die in unbelief, are one half of the Nations; nay nine tens of the Nations: Therefore the blessing which extends itself to all Nations, must needs( by this reasoning extend itself to those that live and die in unbelief; who are by faree the greater part of the Nations. Thus should we argue contrary to the Scripture, which saith, that Abraham is the Father of them that believe, Romans 4.11. And they which are of Faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham, Gal 3.9. Thus is the falsehood of this Proposition discovered.  
But Master Marshall,( who is the doest of the twain) layeth us down a Proposition something varying in words; but aiming at the same mark to wit, That Children are always included under ever administration to the Nation, unless they be excepted.  
Is it possible that Master marshals understanding, or at least his tongue, should thus range from the truth? and that in the Pulpit? and in a Lecture appoynted by the Honourable House of Commons, in a Sermon premeditated, penned, printed, and published? Surely, how doth it behove us to take heed both what, and how, and whom wee hear? How dangerous a Roke is it to build upon man, or the son of man, subject to so many infirmities, passions, and errors? O poor souls, how oft are you hurried into gross and palpable errors? having your souls possessed with an over-weening conceit of the fidelity, truth, and sincerity of man. When a Monk brought a poisoned Cup to King John, he drank his death deeply without any suspicion at all. For as was the superstition of those dayes, who would have deemed poison to have been mingled, in a Cup presented, and tasted by a holy monk. I say therefore again, Take heed and beware what you hear. But you will say, what is the matter, where is the falsehood?  
Doth not he say, that every administration to the Nation includeth Children, unless they bee exception?  
First, is not the preaching of the word of the gospel an administration of God? to a Nation, to all Nations, to every Creature? Mark 16. yet Doctor Featly hath granted unto me in a Conference, that it doth not extend itself unto little Children in the Cradle, if three or four dayes old. And yet are they not in express terms excluded.  
Secondly, was not the Passeover, a national administration to the people o the Iewes, and children of nine dayes old no where excepted, from eating the Passeover: and yet it pleaseth Master Marshall to deny that children did eat the passeover. pag 52. I speak not this because I believe little children did not eat of the passeover, but that I may wound goliath with his own sword.  
Thirdly, he that believeth not shall be damned, and children are not excepted.  
Fourthly, is not the breaking of bread a national administration, as he is pleased to call it: But where can he prove that children are any where excepted from the Lords Supper, rather than from baptism. For in that he saith, pag. 5. That infants are capable of the grace of baptism we are sure, not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacraments of the Lords Supper. How is this; doth baptism seal one grace, and the Lords Supper another? so he will make us believe but it is not yet proved.  
One is our birth, and the other our food he saith: but these are but words without weight.  
Let us see whether the grace sealed in both bee not the same: what doth baptism hold out untous? Remission of sins Act. 2.38. Bee baptized unto remission of sins.  
John preached the baptisine of repentance unto remission of sins, Mar. 1.4. now doth not the Supper hold forth the same? Mat. 26.28. This is my blood of the new Testament, which is  shed for many, for remission of sins. Let any man come forth, and show me one grace held forth in the Supper, which is not held forth in baptism. Will he say that children ought not to receive the Lords Supper, because it is said, Let a man examine himself, &c. Wee say again, that so its said; He that believeth and is baptized: and if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayst: if he say this is meant of men of yeares; we say the same of the other; so that it appears, that children are no more excepted, from one ordinance, than another; being indeed equally excepted from both.  
But if it were true, and granted, yet will not the argument hold, for wee shall find children excepted. And therfore to the minor proposition of the argument, we say, That the commnd of baptizing, doth not extend itself to all persons in or among the Nations, without any restriction, or exception; for if so, the commission would reach all manner of persons whatsoever, as well unwilling, as willing, unbelievers as believers, which none dare say. For if any Nation or City believeth not, no other baptism belongeth to them, than to have dust of the feet shaken off, for a testimony against them.  
again, the Text readeth {αβγδ} Matth. 28. Baptizing them; that is not {αβγδ} the nations, but {αβγδ} Disciples which are included in the verb {αβγδ} teach ye, or make disciples: and so wee justify that answer, which saith, that the command of Christ, entends its self onely to those who being capable, receive instruction, and are taught and made disciples.  
The Doctor seems to take advantage from the word made Disciples, and frameth us this Argument.  
They that are made Disciples may be baptized.  
But, Though Children in their nonage, cannot bee taught, yet they may be made Christs Disciples, by being admitted into his school their parents giving their names to Christ both for themselves and their families.  
This is his saying, and if you will believe him you may, if not, I know not, who can blame you: for here is no proof of it. When as I had some Conference with the Doctor. I did desire proof from him, that children could in their nonage be made Disciples, which he assayed thus to prove; and I did writ it from his own mouth, and red it in his presence.  
I did first allege that Children, could not bee made Disciples. Because it is written, Whosoever beareth not his cross, and followeth me cannot be my Disciple, Luke 14.27.  
His answer was, that this is meant of men and women, and not of Children: which I easily grant, and I do bring it for the same purpose to prove, that children cannot be made Disciples: which he assayed to prove thus.  
All those whose names are given to Christ, by their faithful parents, and brought unto the Church, and received into the Church, and securing given to be bread up in Christs school, are so far made Disciples, as is required of any, in their Infancy to be make Disciples.  
But, Children have their Names given to Christ by their faithful Parents, and are brought unto the Church &c.  
Therefore, They are so fare male Disciples, as is required of any in their Infancy to be made Disciples without any exception, against many things in this Argument, worthy of exception. I do answer by granting the whole, namely that Children are so far made disciples, as is required of any in their Infancy to be made Disciples, that is nothing at all; and so not to be Baptized at all. This is the period, and end of this weighty Argument.  
But Mr. Marshall sets upon us with greater weight, to prove that Children may be made and called Disciples, from Acts 15.10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples.  
I reason thus, saith he, page. 39.  
All they upon whose necks those false Teachers would have put the yoke of Circumcision, are called Disciples and to be called Disciples.  
But they would have put the Circumcision, upon Infants as well as grown men.  
Therefore Infants as well as grown men, are called Disciples, and to be called so.  
The mayor( saith he) is undeniable: the minor I prove thus, as you shall see at large, page. 39.  
Good Sir, spare your labour of proving the minor, for that we do grant as undeniable. But wee boldly deny the mayor, and cannot but be a little amazed, that you should have your sight so dim, to think it undeniable.  
You say, that all they upon whose neck the you was to be put, were called Disciples. This is but your saying, and we may not believe it: for the Text saith not so, which is alleged. All that can be proved out of the Text is this, that they would have put a yoke upon the necks of all the Disciples, not that all were Disciples upon whom they would have put the yoke: or that they would have put the yoke onely upon the Disciples: I think this may be called perverting of Proportions, rather than convering; see but your error: All men living were once in Noah's Ark: All that were in Noah's Ark were men living.  
The Blue Regiment was shaine in such a fight: All that were slain in such a fight were of the Blew regiment. This is your arguing.  
False Teachers put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples: All were Disciples, that false Teachers put a yoke upon: which if it were so, not onely Children,( who were to bee Circumcised after the manner of Moses) must be called Disciples, but also Servants, of what age soever, whether believers, or un believers, must be called Disciples: For all Servants bought with money must needs be circumcised, Gen. 17.13.  
Let a stranger circumcise and the males that belong unto him. Exod. 12.14.  
Servants are then to be called Disciples as well as Children. But more of this anon. If I had not found this under Master marshals name, I should never have given credit to any report of it. Sure it is that if you deal thus with us often, we shall hardly believe you when you tell us truth.  
There is one thing more wee must take notice of in the Doctors reply, that in Christ, precept, Teaching doth not go before, but follow Baptizing, Mat. 28.20. Teaching them to observe all things, &c.  
Answ. This indeed doth prove Teaching follows Baptizing; but it doth not prove that it not go before. I wonder we hear not of that Mark 1.4. John did Baptize and Preach; which is alleged by some, but the answer is the same, the this proves no more but that he preached after he Baptized: not that he preached not before. And no man questions, but that as Preaching goes before baptism, so also it ought to follow: Which Order is well laid down, Hebr. 6.1. what is to be preached before the administration of baptism, viz. Repentance from dead works, and faith towards God, the Doctrine of baptisms. And what is to be preached after, viz laying on of hands, resurrection from the dead, eternal judgement; and so on to perfection.  
Other things there are worthy of exception in the Doctors Reply: but wee leave them to their proper place in the following Arguments. Thus have wee done with the first Argument, which comes forth like a forlorn hope: and what the event of it hath been, I leave to thy censure. I will now go forward, by the assistance of God, to grapple with the second Argument, one horn being broken, so that it is dreadful no longer.   

Argument. 2.  
None ought to exclude the children of the faithful, out of the kingdom of heaven.  
But by denying them baptism,( as much as in us lieth) we exclude them out of the kingdom of Heaven: for as Christ affirmed to Nicodemus, and confirmed it with a double oath, or most vehement asseveration, Amen, Amen, or verily verisy, I say nnto thee, except a man bee bo ne of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ergo, Wee cannot deny them baptism.  
Master Marshall is so wary, as not to make use of this Argument at all; unsesse he seem to dip his finger into it in his first use of Application, page. 52. where he hath these word. First it serves for just reproof of the Anabaptists, and all such as by their rash and bloody sentence, condemn Infants as out of the state of grace.  
And unless it belawfull for us to allege the testimony of Irenaeus, cited by Mr. Marshall, page.. 4.  
The words are cited in Latin,( I believe he was ashamed to English them) they bear this sense, Christ came to save all through himself,( I say all) that are barn again through him into God, infants, littleones, and Children. And by the word born again, according to the Glossers Interpretation is meant Baptized. Where the Glosser, cited by Master Marshall, joins with Doctor Featly, in the meaning of the word born again. But I may not strictly lay this unto Master marshals charge, because he himself hath disclaimed it.  
In this Argument I have not any adversary besides the Doctor, though many have written of the same subject of baptism of late.  
For answer unto this argument, I would we might understand what the Doctor meaneth by the words kingdom of Heaven. Which word is sometimes taken for the visible Church on earth, as for the preaching of the gospel, as Matth. 13. If by kingdom of heaven in the Argument this sense bee held forth; then we deny the mayor, and say that Children are to be excluded from the kingdom of Heaven, as not being capable of membership in a visible Church, being uncapable of hearing, with understanding, the sound of the gospel.  
Secondly, sometimes the word kingdom is taken for the manifestation of God unto the souls of man, as Rom. 14.17. The kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the holy Ghost. And the kingdom of God is within you, Luke 17.21.  
In this second acception, children are also excluded the kingdom of heaven, that is, uncapable of discerning either good or evil, and of receiving the manifestations and Apprehensions of GOD in the soul.  
Thirdly, by kingdom of heaven, may bee understood grace, mercy, and favour of God. And this is the sense in which we imagine the Doctor taketh the word kingdom. And being taken in this sense, wee deny the minor proposition, and say that by denying them baptism, wee do not at all exclude infants, from the kingdom of Heaven: but wee say that Children are as free from sin, as fully in the favour and grace of God before baptism, as after. This seems a strange paradox, to the Doctor who hath not yet learned the art of forgetfulness, to byry his old lesson. For as much as this child is regenerated and born again of Water, &c.  
For to strengthen the assertion: it is alleged which is written John 3.5. Except a man bee born again of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.  
Answ. If wee understand the word kingdom, in the third sense, for the grace, mercy, and favour of God, revealed in Iesus Christ. What will bee more strange than the sense that is brought unto us, viz. That unless man bee baptized, there is no entrance into grace, favour, mercy, no remission of sins, &c. Which how contrary unto sound Doctrine it is, will appear: in that the Scripture which seateth our unto us, the qualifications of those that are to bee baptized, doth require faith. Acts 8.37. If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest. Where it is plain that faith( whose object is remission of sins in Iesus Christ) is required in persons to be baptized. Peradventure the Dr. will say this is meant of men of years of discretion, and no of children: If he shall so say; I demand what reason he had to find fault with his adversary: that unto that place in the 3. of John 5. did answer in these words: The words of our Saviour concern men in riper yeares, and not Children. This the Doctor cannot bear in another, yet he will now bear with it in himself, as he did before unto that place before alleged. Luke 14.27.  
Secondly, suppose this be meant of men of yeares of discretion, it the Doctors ownegrant, that Christ prescribes the remedy to them, as well as men, page. 44. line 1. But he doth not prescribe this as a remedy to men( who are required to believe remission of sins before baptism) therefore not unto children: unless it be more effectual unto children then unto men. To speak my thoughts of this Argument, I shall discover the groundwork upon which it is built. Namely, upon these Propositions.  
First, That baptism was ordained to take away the silth of sin.  
Secondly, That Children before their baptism, are defiled with sin, as well,( he should rather have said, as ill) as men.  
Thirdly, That Children after baptism are washed from sin.  
This is the man that did pretend to writ Romes ruin: Yet see how he dawbeth with Romes Truall, and with het untempered mortar. See I pray you, how he plougheth with Romes Heifer. I'will challenge the Iesuites, to produce me if they can, more foundation rasing errors, than these.  
To the first, that baptism doth not take away the filth of sin: That which takes away the filth of sin, justifies.  
But baptism doth not justify. Therefore it doth not take away the silth of sin.  
again, if the blood of Christ have taken away all sin; then there remaineth none for baptism to take away. If any remain for baptism to take away; then hath not the blood of Christ taken away all sin.  
Now that the blood of Christ hath taken away all sin that ever shall be taken away, we have the Scriptures to witness, John 1. Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. 1 Pet. 2.24. who him. self took away our sins, in his own body upon the three. By whose stripes ye are healed.  
Now what is this but to deny Christ coming in the flesh? to deny his propitition, and atonement.  
Now unto the second Proposition: That children before their baptism are defiled with the guilt of sin.  
Wee grant that they are so indeed by nature. Which is the thing that the Doctor labours to prove, which we do not deny. he should have proved, that they cannot be by any means justified by the grace of God from that Transgression, whereof they stand guilty by nature before baptism. Yet it is worth the observation, how like himself he is in his proof, for he reasoneth thus, page. 44. All that are sentenced to death are guilty of sin. But children are sentenced to death, for they die: therefore they are guilty of sin.  
Is it possible a Doctor should reason no better? What could he have done more against himself? He saith, All that sentenced to death are guilty of sin. Surely, then his sprinkled Infants are not yet cleansed, but the guilt of sine remaineth on them: for many of them die immediately after their sprinkling, if not three quarters dead before.  
This is against his third Proposition.  
again, if all that are sentenced to death are guilty of sin, them is not the Doctor yet purged from his old sins by his own confession, the Messengers of death, having already summoned him to appear Nay then did not the Apostle speak truth when he said, Rev. 1.5. Who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood. What shall we say? that the wise are taken in their own craltinesse? That the Lord hath put out the right eye of the Prophets and Priests, and hath sent them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie.  
But before I leave this Argument, I deem it necessary, to give you the meaning of the Text which is wrested by the Doctor. Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.  
I did make bold to tell the Doctor to his face, that the Protestants do not understand this Text of Baptisine. Which thing he confessed, and said that the Protestants, our of their zeal against the Papists, did go too far on the right hand in the meaning of the Text. Now how far he hath wandered on the left hand, let all be judge.  
cardinal Bellarmin confesseth, that the Protestants do not make use of this Text, as not acknowledging a necessity of Baptisine unto salvation, which this Text seemeth to hold forth.  
All the difficulty of the Text will be resolved, when we shall rightly understand what it is to be born again of water. Which all men know to be a metaphoricall speech, and therefore we must consider the mind of the speaker. To be born again of water is to be partaker of the Invisible, and spiritual washing from sin by Iesus Christ. If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me, John 13.8. unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood, Revelations 1.5.  
These are they that come out of great Tribulations, and have washed their Robes in the blood of the lamb, Revel. 7.14.  
But it will be said, that this is a bloud-washing, not a water-washing.  
I answer, That there are two things considerable in Scripture.  
First, the washing, or taking away of sin.  
Secondly, the manifestation of this washing unto the conscience. Both these, but especially the latter, are set out in Scripture, under the metaphor of water, Ezeck. 36.25. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and cleanse you from, &c. John 4.10. he would have given thee living water, verse 14. Whosoever shall drink of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst: but the water that I shall give him, shall bee in him, a well of water, springing up into everlasting life. Now, what is this water save the word of promises, conveyed unto the soul by the spirit. John 6.38. he that beleevethon me, out of his belly shall slow rivers of living water: This spake he of the spirit: promise is water, and spirit is water. To bee born of water is to bee born of the Word. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, 1. Pet. 1.23. To be born of the spirit; is to have the spirit ministied to the soul, by the hearing of faith. Gal. 3. 2 Cor. 3. whereby the soul is sealed, to the day of Redemption. Thus much in brief to declare the meaning of this place, to clear it from the cloedy gloss, which the Papists in the first place, and the Doctor in the next, have put upon it. The sense then of the text is no more but this: He that beseeveth not shall bee damned. Which the Doctor must grant onely to bee spoken of men of riper yeares, unless he will condemn all infints to destruction. Thus much for the second argument, where in the Doctor is engaged alone. The third follow;.   

Argument 3. page. 44.  
They whom the Apostles Baptizetd, are not to be excluded from baptism: 
Dr. Featly.  for what the Apostles did in their ministry, all function, they undoubtedly did either by Christs command, or by the direction of the holy Spirit, wherewith they were infallibly assisted.  
But the Apostles Baptized children: for they Baptized whole families, whereof Children were a known part.  
Ergo, Children ought not to bee excluded from baptism.  
The gospel takes place, just as the Law, 
Mr. Marshall. page. 40.  by bringing in whole families together: when Abraham was taken in, his whole Family was taken in with him. When any of the Gentiles turned Proselytes, ordinarily their families came in with them: so in this new Administration, usually if the Master of the house turned Christian, his whole family came in and are Baptized with him.  
Answer. I cannot but commend the modesty of Bellarmin, who bringing in this Argument, confesseth that it concludeth onely probably, and nothing certain, because no man is able to prove, that there were any Children in these families.  
Yet these men must have it ganted them, otherwise they imagine we are not to be born with all: for saith the Doctor, It is no way credible, that in all these Familis blessed by God, and converted to the Christian faith, all the women should be barren, and not one fruitful. For Answer I say. First, the Doctor cannot prove, that there were any married women at all in these Families. Secondly, suppose them to be all married, must they needs be barten, unless they had little children in the Cradle. Is it not possible that a man and woman may have seven Children, or more, and yet the least of them be able to perceive the weakness of the Doctors reasoning, and able to confute it?  
Concerning the six housholds baptized, we find but two of them that had their whole housholds Baptized: that is, Cornelius Acts 11.14. and the jailer, Acts 16 33. Now concerning the first of these: it is said Acts 10.2. That he feared God with all his house: And we red of no more Baptized, save they that received the boly Ghost, verse 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we. And wee red of no more receiving the Holy Ghost, save they which heard the Word, verse 44. The holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word. Now all that were Baptized, seared God, heard the Word, received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles themselves. For the second whole household baptized, which was the Gaolers, Acts 16. we red, that they spake the word to all that were in the house, verse 32. and so his whole house believing in God rejoiced, verse 34. So that all that are here said to be Baptized, are said to hear the Word, believe and rejoice. Now how any such should be a child in a Cradle, not able to discern good or evil, we are( as yet) not able to understand.  
As for the other four houshoolds, it is not said, that the whole housholds were Baptized; and therefore no need that the Sucklings should be excepted, if there had been any. First, because there was not as yet such a Doctor hatched, who would imagine Infants to be baptized. Sacondly, the name of the whole being commonly taken for the greater part, sometimes for the better part: as also sometimes for the worse part. Thirdly, the Doctor cannot imagine why the Apostle should not except Children if they were not Baptized. I will entreat him to give me leave to imagine the reason: and it shall be none other than the answer of the Lord to the Disciples, Matth 13.13 Therefore speak I to them in Parables: Because they seeing see not, and hearing, hear not, &c. They that are wise shall understand, but the heat of this people is waxed gross, and their cares are dull of hearing. The Doctor might as well have asked the question, if it were not the mind of Christ, that Children should be Baptized, why did he not in express terms say, Children shall not bee Baptized, that so in a word the controversy might habe been ended. I leave the Answer of this question unto the prudent that are truly taught of God. As for others, they are not able to bear it.  
I must now turn me unto Master Marshall, who tells us a very faire story, if it were true, that the gospel took place just as the Law, so that usually, if the Master of the family turned Christian, his whole family came in, &c.  
Sure wee red of six families, and no more, and that sometimes it is so, none can deny: we bless God we are able to show the truth of it in our dayes, though rarely. But that this was, or is an usual thing, is not trre. Was not Philemon a Christian, and yet his servant Onesimus an unbeliever? Nay was it not an ordinary case among the Corinths, and else-where, that the husband was a believer, and the wife an unbeliever? 1 Cor. 7.14. The unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: And how knowest thou O man whether thou shalt save thy wife? verse 16. Nay, was it not an usual case, that the Father was a believer, but the Children unbelievers? the children believers, but the Father an unbeliever? otherwise what mean these words, Matth. 10.21. The brother shall deliver up the brother, and the father the child: and children shall rise up against their parents, &c. verse 35. I am come to set a man at variance against his Father, and the daughter against her mother: and the daughter in law against the mother in law, and a mans foes shall bee they of his own household, Mark 13.12. Children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. All this notwithstanding he is bold to affirm, that it was an usual thing as of old, when the Master was Circumcised, all the family was circumcised. For when the Master or father of the Family was Baptized, all the whole family followed. I wonder men of learning, and gravity are not ashamed of such arguing as this. This Argument seems so light unto me, and lieth open unto many absurdities, more then I either have, or will speak of: that surely in my judgement, it is not worthy of a further answer.  
But men that have no better weapons, must be contented to bring forth such as they have. I will now hasten unto the fourth Argument: In these words, page. 45.   

Such as were Circumcised under the Law may and ought to be Baptized under the gospel: 
Dr. Featly.  for baptism answereth to Circumcision, and is called by that name, Col. 2.11, 12. The same grace is sealed unto us by the one, as by the other, to wit; mortification of the flesh, remission of sins, and admission into the visible Church. And the children of Christians are as capable of baptism, as the children of the Iewes were of Circumcision. But children were Circumcised under the Law, Gen. 17.12.13.  
Ergo. Children may and ought to bee baptized under the Gospel.  
The same command which enjoined Abraham, to seal his children with the seal of the Covenant, enjoins us as strongly to seal ours with the seal of the covenant, And that command of God which expressly bound Abraham, to seal his with the sign of circumcision, which was the sacrament then in force pro tempore, doth virtually bind us, to seal ours with the seal of baptism; which is the Sacrament now in force, and succeeds in the room of the other by his own appointment.  
page. 27. Be pleased to observe how plain the Apostle makes it, that baptism succeeds in the room, place and use, of circumcision, Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  
Here is very much spoken, and little proved, many intricate questions being herein involved, which would ask much labour to discuss.  
First, Whether baptism come in the room of circumcision? the proof alleged out of Col. 2.8. doth prove baptism, to succeed in the room of circumcision, no more than, 1 Pet. 3.20.21. doth prove Biptisme to come in the place of the ark of Noah which indeed Master Marshall will say: for he saith baptism is the ark to carry to heaven. page. 58. 11.  
Secondly, Whether the same grace were sealed in Circumcision, which is sealed in baptism, neither more nor less, as first, whether something were not sealed in Circumcision, which is no sealed in baptism; viz. I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a stranger; All the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. Gen. 17.8. secondly, another query is; whether something bee not sealed in baptism, which was not sealed to the Iewes in Circumcision? viz. sin already taken away, and transgression finished 1600. yeares agone, by the Messiah.  
Thirdly, a third question, whether the Scripture, will give us warrant, to call baptism a seal or not.  
Thus you see that which these men think so plain, doth indeed fill the world, with doubtful controversies; But I shall shun all these questions, and address myself unto the answer of the argument: In which I deny the mayor, and say that they which were uncircumcised under the Law, may not bee Baptized under the Gospel; neither doth the command of God, which bound the jew to circumcision, bind us to baptism. This remaineth to be proved: for first of all.  
The command of God, commanded all Males to bee circumcised, whether the Parents believed or not. And this is more than any of both these, undertakers dare affirm, that all Children should be baptized.  
Secondly, the command of God required the many thousands of Israel to bee circumcised, at the hill of foreskins, when they were grown men, and bare arms, yet we red of no profession of faith, Ios. 5.3. It was enough to entitle any one unto circumcision, that he was of the loins of Abraham. But this was not enough to entitle men to baptism. Which the Baptist seems to me, to confirm, when he reproves the Pharisees, Mat. 3.9. And think to say within yourselves, wee have Abraham to our Father: as if he should have said; you think to claim, right, and privilege unto Circumcision, for you, and yours; because Abraham is your Father: and indeed so you may. And now because you have right to circumcision, you imagine also, that upon the same ground, you have right to baptism; I tell you nay: for this baptism, is the baptism of repentance: Bring forth therfore fruits, meet for repentance. You have hither o lived under a national Church, under carnal ordinances, wherein the chaff, and the wheat, have been mingled together, without separation, and have seemed to enjoy, the same privileges, and prerogatives under the carnal commandement. But now cometh one, whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge His Floure, and gather the wheat into his Garner, but the chaff will he burn with unquenchable fire.  
Hitherto wee have enjoyed common privileges. You have all been Circumcised, all eaten the Passeover, all brought your offerings to the Priests, without any distinction of chaff from Wheat. But it shall not be so now: So that we see there is more qualifications required unto baptism, than were required unto Circumcision.  
Thirdly, the command of God, required not only Children, to be circumcised, but also servants, as hath been spoken before, Gen. 17. And when a proselyte came in, he was bound not onely to circumcise his Children, but all his Servants, Exod. 12.48. So that if the command be in force for Children; it must needs be also in force for servants. So that if a Master bee converted to the faith, and have an hundred Servants, they must all bee Baptized whether they will or no. Now who will not blushy at this? let them see how they can escape this.  
We must not let pass the dealing of these men, who will have the command to stretch, either wider, or narrower,( like the Sea mans hose) according to their pleasure. Sometimes they will not be tied to the command, as in the circumstance of time; and yet they are not able to show any reason why the circumstance should not tie them. And I would they would resolve us one question; how many dayes a child may be kept unbaptised without sin?  
Sometimes they will stretch beyond their command, as in Baptizing Females. They will challenge as great a privilege as may be, either to do, or not to do at their pleasure.  
And yet is the Argument of Circumcision the main post and pillar upon which the whole fabric leaneth.  
Fourthly, if the command of Circumcision be the rule of baptism, why should not the Passeover, be the rule of the Supper.  
As among the Ancients, who did give the Lords Supper unto Children upon the same ground. And he hath no other shift to avoid it, but by denial that Infants did eat the passover. There is no such thing mentioned( saith he) in the Book of God.  
But for that, we say, first the whole family was to eat it, Exod. 12. And Master Marshall thinks it a sufficient ground, that children were Baptized, because some Families were Baptized. And shall it not be a sufficient ground, that Children eat the Passeover, when not a few, but all the Families of Israel, even the whole Assembly of the Congregation did eat it.  
unto this Master Marshall replieth page. 40. that our Argument is not so strong as theirs; to prove Infants did eat the Passeover.  
They reason thus, Some Families were Baptized.  
Therefore Children were Baptized.  
We reason thus; Not some onely, but all the families of Israel did eat the Passeover. Therefore Children did eat the Passeover.  
The first of these reasons,( as they think) is strong for them: Then why should not the second bee stronger against them? No, they deny the consequence; Strange what conceit will do. But least he should speak without reason, he will tell you why he denieth the Consequence. Because no other Scripture shows that the Passeover doth belong to Infants. But wee have other plain Scriptures, that baptism is in the room of Circumcision page. 41. First, the weakness of the reason is here plainly confessed. Secondly, these Scriptures are not yet seeen. Thirdly, if you could bring but such Scripture for Baptizing of Infants, as we are able to bring for Infants eating the Passeover, the controversy would soon be ended.  
First, all the Congregation of Israel did eat thereof. But by your confession Infants of nine dayes old, were admitted into the visible Church, and so admitted members of the Congregation.  
Secondly, there was no bar( bodily uncleanness excepted) to keep any from the Passeover, but uncircumcision onely. No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof, Exod. 12.48.  
Thirdly it was the command of God: Three times of the year shall all the males appear before the Lord, Exod. 23.17. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord, Exud. 34.23. That the Feast of the Passeover was once of this thrice, appeareth as by the fore-cited places. So also Deut. 16.1. unto the end of the eighth verse, as also is manifest by example, Luke 2.41. His parents went to jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passeover. I am certain that if our opposites had but thus much for the baptism of Infants, that wee have for Infants eating the Passeover, they would clap their hands and cry vicimus. Let them see in the mean time, the strength, or rather weakness of their own great Argument, which indeed produceth all the rest. For I will bee bold to say, that take this Argument of Circumcision away, and you shall take all away.  
But suppose we should grant, if baptism came in the room of Circumcision, that the same, and no other grace is sealed in the one, than in the other. Yet will it not follow that Children should bee Baptized, because there being a change of of the Ordinance and a vanishing of it away, we are not to look back unto the old, that is vanished away, but unto the command which instituteth the new: It is the command by which we must be guided, lest he that is the judge of all say unto us, as unto the superstitious Scribes and Pharisees: In vain do they worship me, teaching for Doctrine the tradition of men, Matth. 15.6. And who hath required these things at your hands? But unto this they reply, That we have no command for giving the Supper to Women, or for Baptizing of Women, as some have said,( whom for honour sake I will not name) that we have no example for Baptizing of Women: so far had they forgotten themselves, and erred, not knowing the Scriptures. Doctor Featlies words are these, They can can produce no express particular command either for the Baptizing of women, or administering the Lords Supper to them, page. 46.  
Master Marshall is a little bolder in the one Ordinance than in the other. His words are these page. 35. In the point of Sacraments there is no express command, no example in all the new Testament, where women received the Sycrament of the Lords Supper. There is no express command, that the Children of believers, when they are grown should be instructed, and baptized; though instructed by their parents.  
What would these men have? would they impose upon us, that something may bee added unto the worship of God, which is not at all found in Scripture by command, or example? They dare not say so: How often shall we tell them, that if they bring us either command, or example, by necessary consequence, we will believe them.  
First, No command for Baptixing of women, saith the Doctor. But. Master Marshall dare not say so. I pray what is that Matth. 28.20. Make Disciples of all nations, baptizing them. Here is a command for baptizing believing Disciples.  
Secondly, we have no command, saith the Doctor, no example, saith Master Marshall, that women received the Lords Supper. This was alleged against Master Latimer, in Queen Maries dayes at the disputation holden at Oxford by the popish crew. And it was then to their shane answered by the Martyr, That wee had a command in the 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself. The Word in the Greek is ANTHROOPOS, And in their own vulgar Latin Homo, which signifies a man or woman. This answer of his did so abash the Popish fry, that they had not wherewith to reply. But these men are not so easily dashed out of countenance, they cannot so easily blushy. But in their conceit they are able to shift this. They confess that the word signifies man, or woman: yet they say, though the word ANTHROOPOS is a common name to both Sexes. 
Dr. Featly. page. 73.  Yet the Apostle useth the masculine Article, HO, not HE, and HEAUTON, not HEAUTEN, and so there is no express command, but for men. I wonder the Doctors face is not as read as his Scarlet gown, in bringing such a criticism, in a matter of so great weight. You cannot be ignorant, that under the more worthy gender, both Sexes are usually comprehended. The Church in Acts 1.15. are termed Disciples, in the masculine gender: and yet were women amongst them, verse 14. The Apostles, writ to Saints, Brethren, Beloved, all in the masculine gender. Therefore did he not writ to any women. Thus the Doctor reasons, 1 John 5.21. The Apostle saith, Little Children keep yourselves from idols. yourselves, in the Greek is masculine: though Children be neuter. Now by the Doctors logic, Women are not here commanded to keep from idols, Heb. 9.27. It is appoynted for men once to die. The word men is restrained to the Masculine, by the Article TOIS: Therefore this is not meant of women: it cannot be proved from hence, that women must die. Doctor-like. How long will you harden your faces. Are you not yet ashamed of these things,( my pen had almost written) tricks, psalm 39.6. Surely every man walketh in a vain show. The heart of man it deceitful, Rom. 3.10. There is none righteous, no not one, Gal. 3.10. Cused is every one that continueth not, &c. All these and a thousand more in the Masculine gender: do these places exclude women? The Doctor complains, they have taken way his books, and Livings. Surely, be that readeth this, will suppose he hath lost his reason, and his understanding also. To make an end of this Brabble, I pray consider, Gen. 5.2. Male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam.  
A third Proposition is laid down by Master Marshall, page. 45. That there is no express command, that the children of believers when they are grown, should be instructed, and Baptized, &c. I should as soon have believed, that the Rivers would have forgotten their course, and run up the hills, as that such a thing should have flown from Master marshals mouth. Thus are men smitten with blindness, and their right eye put out; when they fight against the truth of God. O Lord, thou art righteous in thy judgements: thou hast confounded the wise, and made their folly to appear: Thou hast given them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie, because they have not believed thy Truth: Oh our Father, out of the mouth of Babes hast thou perfected praise: When the wise do utter folly and deceit.  
I shall bring no other thing against Master Marshall, but his own words: Out of his own mouth shall he be judged. His next words are these: express command there is, that they should teach the Heathen and the Iewes, and make them Disciples, and then Baptize them. But no command, that the Children of believers should be taught and baptized, &c. Why, are the Children of believers, neither Iewes nor Gentiles. They must bee of one sort. For these two divide the whole world in Scripture; into jew, or gentle: the gentle again being divided into Greek or Barbarian, Heathen, and gentle being but one in signification. The grown Children of believers, are either Iewes or Gentiles, or else none of the world. But there is a command to Baptize all Discipled Iewes and Gentiles. Therefore all grown children of believers so soon as they shall be Discipled.  
In the next place, to prove, that they who were Circumcised may be Baptized, is brought the reason and equity of the Law, which still remaineth.  
I pray what reason can be shewed why the people should be circumcised at all: but only the will and command of God?  
again, what reason can be shewed, why children should be Circumcised, from Abraham to Christ; rather ther than from Adam to Abraham. Here reason falters, faith and obedience takes place.  
ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. John 15.14.  
again, they say, If the Children of Christian parents should be excluded from baptism, they were in a worse condition than the Iewes under the Law.  
I answer, it followeth not, that happiness which they had by Circumcision under the Law was called a yoke, Acts 15. And Master Marshall confesseth, that it did oblige them to great expenses, and long journeys. Yet if it should have been a greater Prerogative than it was, the consequence will not hold: for who dare say, that the Children and Infants of Seth were in a worse condition( in respect of salvati, on) than the children of Abraham: and yet they were neither Circumcised, nor Baptized, and yet saved as well as they, that were both Circumcised and Baptized. I will not dwell any longer upon the Answer of this fourth Argument, but go on to consider the fifth.   

Argument 5.  
They who are comprised within the Covenant, 
Dr. Featly. page. 46.  and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof, may, and ought to receive it.  
But Children are comprised within the Covenant of faith, whereof Circumcision was a seal, Rom. 8.11. And now baptism is.  
Ergo, Children may and ought to receive baptism.  
This is Master marshals first and great Argument, which he layeth down in rhyme, thus.  
The Infants of believing parents, are faederati, 
Mr. Marshal. page. 8.  therefore they must be signati: They are within the Covenant of grace, belonging to Christs body, kingdom, and Family: therefore are to partake of the seal of his Covenant, or the distinguishing badge, between them who are under the Covenant of grace, and them who are not.  
Answer. These two Arguments do but onely disfer in word: but in substance they are one and the same. Both of equal force, or rather of like weakness. I shall address myself to answer the Argument, as it is laid down by Master Marshall, because in him it hath the greater weight. Onely I shall touch the Doctor by the way: and first I must observe the Doctors slight, in leaving out some words which ought to have been inserted in the second Proposition, viz. Children are comprised within the Covenant of Faith. These words ought to have been added And are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof. And then the minor Proposition shall be denied: Because an Institution of God, and an affirmative command, doth usually forbid all things that are comprehended in the affirmative command, or which are beyond, or besides the Institution. Is it any where in Scripture forbidden, that the Doctor shall not Baptize his Bells after the Popish superstition? But if he should do so, might it not be said, Who hath required these things at your hands? and might not the Lord justly challenge you with the breach of his command? add not thou unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar, Prov. 30.6. Thus will the Lord say; I gave Commission to Baptize believers, and ye have Baptized Children. In vain do ye worship me. To add unto the Ordinance of God, hath seemed a slender fault sometimes. But surely in my conceit, nothing can be more hideous, I confess it a foul fault to take any thing away, but a far greater to add. See Rev. 22.18, 19. If any man shall take away from the words of the prophesy of this Book, God shall take away his part of the Book of life, &c, A heavier censure: But, if any man shall add, God shall add unto him all the plagues that are written in this book. A heavy censure: Therefore let this D. hear, and tremble, thou hast transgressed his Commission, thou hast added to his words, Repent therefore of this wickedness, that if it be posiible the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. When a man cometh to a vessel of wine, and taketh away many Gallons, yet that which remain his Wine still. But if he shall add but one Gallon of water, but a dram or two of poison, the Wine remaineth no longer Wine. But your Wine is mixed with water, Esa 1.22 and there will be death found in a poisoned Cup. Take a homely comparison along with you. A Butcher hath two( Oustomers in the Summer time, the wasp, and the Flesh-fly: the wasp brings nothing with him, but takes some meat away. The fly takes nothing away, but addeth unto that she sinds: Now tell me, if the Butcher had not rather have seven wasps in his shop than one fly. Peradventure the Doctor may pled, he is no wasp,( yet we feel his sting) yet in this he shall never justify himself from being a buzzing flesh fly; that hath done more harm by addition, than ever he could have done by substraction. I leave the Doctor to prove unto us the Proposition denied. And I address myself unto Master marshals great Argument, in show like a weavers beam: But when I have weighed it, I find it so light, that it is like the chaff before the wind, or like the Thistle down before the whirl wind. Both of the Propositions being so false, that it appears the conclusion hath not any show of truth. First, they that are in Covenant must bee sealed. This is denied: For first, women among the Iewes were in Covenant, yet not sealed with Circumcision: His Reply is, that they were Circumcised in the Males. Very good, if Circumcision be a rule of baptism, let him show us a reason, why female Children, should not be baptized in the males. But we add, male children among the Iewes were in Covenant before they were eight dayes old, yet were they not Citcumcised before they were eight dayes old: because God had set the eight day, an express term for Circumcision. And so hath God set an express time for Bapti me: viz. The time of believing.  
Thirdly, we farther add upon Master marshals own grant, in his first conclusion, That The Covenant of grace hath always for substance been one and the same.( In the prosecution whereof many things are confusedly spoken) if this bee granted: Then were the Children of the faithful, from Adam to Noah, ten generations; from Noah to Abraham ten generations, as well in Covenant, as the Children of the faithful now. Or else the Covenant was not one and the same. But we see for twenty generations, no seal annexed unto Children in Covenant. And the reason is because God had not commanded. And this is the reason now, why baptism is not to bee applied unto Children, because God hath not commanded it so to be applied.  
Fourthly, we further add, upon the grant of the third Conclusion: That ever since Abrahams time, God had a seal to be applied to such as enter into Covenant with him. This gives us to take into consideration, how Children of believers are in Covenant more than the Children of unbelievers? We say, that it is one thing for God to enter into Covenant with the Creature, it is another thing for the Creature to enter into Covenant with God. For we red of a Covenant made by God unto every living Creature, to fowle, cattle, and every beast of the earth. Gen. 9.10. Here we see God enters into covenant with Beasts and Fowl●s: But they do not reciprocally enter into covenant with God against. So that it is plain, that God entering into Covenant with the Creature, and the creature entering into Covenant with God, are two real distinct things. Although it be granted him, that God hath entred into covenant with all believers children, yet it shall never bee granted him, that they have entred into covenant with God. Weegrant that Conclusion, that God hath a seal, now to be applied to all that enter into Covenant with God. But this is the thing that should have been proved, that children do enter into covenant with God. And yet all that he labours to prove is, that God entereth into Covenant with Children. God hath a seal for all that Covenant with him, but not for all with whom he enters into Covenant.  
The next thing to be taken into consideration is, whether the Covenant of Gods grace, belong any more to the children of believers, than unbelievers? and whether it do truly belong to all the children of unbelee. vers: or whether to some of one, and some of the other indifferently? If it belong to some of one, and some of the other indifferently: why do they refuse to Baptize the one when they Baptize the other. I could have wished, that he had declared unto us what he had meant by the Covenant of grace, that he might have spared our labour. For he confesseth, that only true believers are made partakers of the spiritual part of the Covenant, page. 3. The grace of God is comprehended( so far as we are able to comprehend) in these branches: the grace of Election, of Vocation, of justification, of glorification. I know not any other fruit of that love of God, revealed in the new covenant, manifested unto the world by Iesus, the mediator between God& man.  
Did God give His son Iesus to die for the Children of believers, and did he not give him to die for the children of unbelievers also? Otherwise how could the Gentiles have been taken into covenant. Hath God chosen all the children of believers? Why, then all of them shall be saved, for whom he did predestinate, them also he called, Rom. 8. Hath God chosen onely the children of believers; Then, shall none other be saved. But if he have chosen some of one, and some of the other: Then doth the grace of Election belong to one as well as to another. The like may be said of Vocation, and Iuslification: wee cannot see how the children of believers should bee rather justified than the children of unbelievers. For, by the obedience of one, the free guife came upon all men, unto justification of life. Rom. 5.18. neither do we understand the part of he covenant of grace, which is not spiritual.  
But it will bee said, although our reason cannot fathom this, yet, if so bee that the text alleged will hold forth, what he hath afirmed, we are bound to believe it. True, Therefore in the next place, we desire to ponder the Scripture which he hat brought as a prop unto his opinion. Acts 2.38, 39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. In a word, by this promile, I understand the knowledge of remission of sins, and life everlasting.  
Now who are the children that this promise is made unto. The Doctor will help us here a little( though against his will) for he confesseth that the promise to Abraham, and his seed, was not to bee understood of the seed according to the flesh: This he saith is contrary unto the Apostle, Rom. 4.13. The promise that he should bee the beire of the world, was not given to Abraham, or his seed through the Law, but through the rightcousnesse of faith, as he was the father of all the faithful; and to this purpose also, this present text. Acts 2.38. it alleged, unto which he joineth, Gala. 3.7. Know ye therefore that they that are of faith, are the children of Abraham: unto which also a reason is joined, and yet applied against reason, by the Doctor, page. 47. From this concession of the Doctors, wee give an answer unto the other: thus; No believer hath a larger copy, or privilege than Abraham had, but Abrahams copy( in respect of the eternal covenant) did not belong to Abrahams seed after the flesh. Therefore the privileges of believers do not belong to their seed after the flesh, but after the spirit. if it be enquired who are the seed of believers; it will be answered in the words of our Saviour, when it was  told him, Mar. 3.32. Behold thy Mother and thy brethren, without seek thee, and he answered themsaying, who is my Mother and my brethren. And he looked round about on them, which sate about him and said, behold my Mother and my brethren, &c. It is said of Levi, that he said unto his Father, and to his mother, I have not seen him, neither did he aclowledge his brethren, nor know his own children. he that believeth and is baptized, the same is my Father, my Mother, my Brethren, my Sisters.  
Thus we see that the seed of believers, is not to bee reckoned according to the flesh.  
But wee will grant, that that place in Acts 2.38. is meant of that seed which was according to the flesh: And wee say, that the promise is extended no farther than the words of the Text, even to as many, as the Lord your God shall call. For first, the promise is made to you, upon calling, to them that are a far off upon ealling: and therefore unto their Children also, upon Calling; and no otherwise. The Text is plain.  
But Master Marshall replieth, that this had been no comfort to tell them, that their Children should be received in, if they did believe, for this was no better comfore than might have been preached to any unbeliever. I plainly see that Bernard seeth not all things; and that Mr. Mirshall misseth the scope of the Text, which I will endeavour to pen, and then leave him to further consideration. When Peter had declared unto the Iemes, that they had taken, and by wicked Sands crucified and slain the Lord of life, Acts 2.23. And that God raised up, and made the same Iesus whom they crucified both Lord and Christ, verse 36. When they were convinced in their souls of this wickedness; they were pricked in their hearts, and do not say, what shall we do to be saved? But as men in a most forlorn, and desperate condition, out of all hope of salvation, either for their selves or their posterity they say, Men and brethren what shall we do:  
Let me lay open the heart of this people a little, that you may know and judge of their case. I suppose them thus to speak: Hath the Lord said indeed, That every transgression; and disobedience against that Law, delivered unto us at sinai, in the hand of a Medialor, shall receive just recompense of reward? Then what tongne can express, what heart can conceive that recompense that is due unto us? who have not onely transgressed Moses Law, but have also crucified the Lord of life, slain the Mediator of the new Testament, wom God hath raised up, and made Lord of all. with what face can we look on him, whom we have pierced? Tremble O earth and be astonished O heavens at our estate, and condition; Hills fall upon us, Mountaines cover us, what shall we do? This is out misery, and yet is not this all; for wee well remember what was written from the Trumpet of Sinai, I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third or fourth generation, of them that hate me, Exodus 20.5. Will God indeed visit the transgression of his Law from Sinai, unto the third and fourth generation? sure then, O cursed children of most cursed Parents, shall not we, and our Childrens children, be visited unto a thousand generations. O see, there is not any hope left, that either wee, or our children, or childrens children, should ever be received unto mercy again. We have crucified, we have slain the Lord of life, and now, men and brethren what shall we do? Now these things being thus, you shall see the plaster of Consolation, full as broad as the foare of Desperation. Peter speaketh words of comfort unto them, to this effect: if you, your children, or generations a far off, shall repent, and be Baptized, fear it not, you shall not be excluded, for I declare unto you the promise to you, and to your children, and to all that are a far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Now let the Reader judge, whether the promise of taking in of their Children, upon Calling, were not a word of great Conlolation, unto desperate, and dillracted parents who for the present could think no other thing, but that both they and their children should be for ever damned.  
Thus much for the Exposition of this Text, and for the answer unto the fift Argument.  
Now follows the sixth Argument, laid down by Dr. Featly, rage 47.   

Such who were typically Baptized under the Law, are capable of real and true baptism, under the gospel: for the Argument holds good, a typo adveritatem, from the type to the truth, from the sign in the Law, to the thing signified in the Gospel.  
But Children were typically Baptized under the Law, for they with their Fathers, were under the cloud, and passed through the redsea. But their washing with rain from the Cloud, presigured our washing in baptism, and by the Spirit. And the read Sea, in which Pharaoh and his Host were drowned, was an emblem of Christs blood, in which all our ghostly enemies are drowned, and destroyed.  
Ergo, Children are capable of true and real baptism under the gospel.  
In this Argument Master Marshall joineth not with him at all.  
Answ. It is unsufferable, when men will seek to prove a Conclusion true by two false Propositions.  
First, the mayor is denied: All that were typically Baptized under the Law, are not capable of true baptism under the gospel. For by the same reason, all the whole Congregation of Israel, had been capable of baptism in John Baptists dayes.  
Secondly, not only the Congregation of Israel, but a mixed multitude went up with them, Exodus 12.38.  
But he reasoneth, that this was a Type of our baptism.  
I answer, In every type as there is a similitude, so also there is some dissimilitude.  
Secondly, I deny that this was any type of baptism at all: and the Dr. cannot prove it.  
Now to the minor, that children were typically baptized under the Law, is also denied. For though they were in the sea,( so were their cattle) and though they were in the Cloud, yet not any were baptized unto Moses, but such as did understand the wonders of the Lord, even such as believed the Lord, and his Servant Moses, Exodus 14.31. For it is said, They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink: namely, they did all eat and drink Christ. Now Christ cannot be eaten and drunk without believing. Both the Propositions being thus false, we leave the Conclusion altogether untrue.   

Argument 7. page. 49.  
All they who belong to Christ, and his kingdom, ought to be received into the Church by baptism. 
Dr. Featly.   
But children belong to Christ and his kingdom, as Christ himself teacheth us, Mark 10.14. Luke 10.16. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily, I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein, Verse 15. And he took them up in his arms, and put his hands upon them, and blessed them.  
Ergo, Children ought to be admitted into the Church by baptism.  
Suffer them to come unto me, and forbid them not, because of such is the kingdom of God. 
Mr. Marshal. pag. 42  That is my Church and kingdom is made up of those, as well as of others.  
I will answer this, and the following Arguments, with more brevity, than I have answered the former. And I do deny the mayor, or first Proposition, viz. All that belong unto the kingdom of Christ, ought not to be received into the Church by baptism. A person may bee said to belong to the kingdom of Christ two ways. First, by Election, which is secret. Secondly by Calling, which is manifest. Now the Ordinance of baptism belongeth not unto Election, but unto Calling.  
Now master marshals dealing is observable, who saith, that Christ saith, his Church and Kingdom consisteth of such: where he addeth the word Church, which Christ expresseth nor and therefore wee will charge him with addition of more unto the text, than is found therein. And we give him to understand that many belong the kingdom of God, who do not belong to the Church of God. And these Insants, whom our Saviour professeth by his divine knowledge, to belong unto his kingdom, and yet you see, that he neither baptized them, nor yet commanded them to bee baptized. Although( I say) he knew they belonged unto his kingdom. With what forehead, dare you baptize infants, when you know not whether they belong to the kingdom of God or no.   

Argument. 8.  
All they which receive the grace, 
Dr. Featly. page. 50.  both signified and exhibited to us in baptism, may and ought to receive the sign and Sacrament thereof. This is the Basis and foundation upon which Saint Peter himself builds, Acts 10.47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as wee. And it may be further confirmed by an argument drawn à majori all minus, after this manner, of God bestow upon children, that which is greater, the inward grace; why should wee deny them the lesser, the outward Elements? Or by an Argument drawn à relatis: they to whom the Lund is given, ought not to bee denied the sight and keeping of the Deeds and Evidences thereof: neither ought wee to sever the things that God hath joined, to wit, the signs and the things signified. They divide the sign firm the thing signified, who deny them to have grace ordinarily, modo non ponant obicem, who receive the outward sign. And they again sever the thing signified from the sign, who allow unto Children the grace of remission of sins,& regeneration, and yet deny them the sign and seal thereof, to wit, baptism.  
But children receive the grace signified, and exhibited in baptism: for the Apostle teacheth us, they are not unclean, but holy: and therefore have remission of sins, and sanctification.  
Ergo, Children ought to receive the sign and Sacrament thereof, to wit, baptism.  
To whom the inward grace of baptism, doth belong, to them belongs the outward sign: 
Mr. Marshal, page. 41.  They ought to have the sign, who have the thing signified: the earthly part of the Sacrament must be given unto them who have the heavenly part. But the Infants of believers, even while they are Infants, are made partakers of the inward grace of baptism, of the heavenly and spiritual part, as grown men. Therefore they may, and ought to receive the outward sign of baptism.  
I will Answer this deceitful and pudled, and confounded Argument, by denial of the mayor, and by laying down in brief, certain Propositions to clear if it may be that which is here so full of confusion.  
1. Prop. That children have the grace, mercy, and favour of God.  
2. Prop. Children have not the knowledge of this grace and mercy.  
3. Not they who have received grace and mercy: But they who have received manifestation of grace, ought to bee Baptized.  
4. That Peter Acts 10. speaketh not onely of mercy and grace given, but also of mercy and grace manifested.  
5. That neither Children, nor Dr. Featly, nor Mr. Marshall, have yet received the gift whereof Peter speaks Act. 10.  
6. That Children may be holy in Gods imputation.  
7. That Children are not holy in conscience and manifestation.  
8. That in the sense whereof the Apostle spake, Children are not otherwise holy, than the unbelieving husband, who is sanctified: else were your children unclean, that is ought to be put away. But new are they holy, you may remain with them still. See Mr. Marshall, page. 19. and Nehem. 13.25. See Ezra 10.2.  
9. No unbeliever ought to be Baptized, Acts 8.36.  
10. A child may have right to land, which may not keep the Deeds.  
11. A person may have the greater, to whom the lesser is denied. Otherwise, why do you deny the Supper to Children, who as you say, have the heavenly grace, and gift of the holy Ghost.   

Argument 9.  
All apostolical traditions, 
Dr. Featly. page. 52.  which are truly such ought to be had in reverend esteem, and retained in the Church. For what the Apostles delivered, they received from Christ himself, either by word of mouth, or the infallible inspiration of his Spirit. Such things are part of that Sacrum depositum, which Timothy is charged so deeply to keep. O Timothy keep that which is committed unto thee. And the Thessalonians to stand fast, and keep Paradoseis, word for word: the traditions which you have been taught, either by word, or by our Epistle. But the baptism of children is an apostolical tradition, truly so called.  
Ergo, It ought to be had in high estem, and retained in the Church.  
Origen saith, 
Mr. Marshal. pag. 4.  the Church received the tradition of Baptizing Infants from the Apostles, traditions being onely such things as are delivered from one to another; whether written, or unwritten.  
Answ. What will you have? will you bring us back to unwritten traditions again: if your tradition bee unwritten, why do you impose it upon us?  
To prove that it is a Tradition, you allege Austin, Prosper, jerom, Cyprian, Origen, &c. And in the front of your Book Gregory Nazianzen.  
unto the Testimony of Gregory, I shall answer in the first place: that in the place and words cited by yourself, Gregory doth restrain it unto, dauger, saying, if there be any danger. But what if there be no danger, then let them stay TRI●TIAN, &c. Three years,( saith Nazianzen) less, or more, until they be able to hear and answer.  
And these words in the Author do immediately follow the place quoted by the Doctor. And he himself confessed unto me, that he knew that this was the Authors opinion, that( time of danger excepted) Children ought not to be Baptized before they could hear and answer. And yet hath he with great frand, hidden this from the hearers. judge I pray you, whether this be Christian dealing, or not. And what was the custom in those dayes? whether to huddle with children to the Font or no, may appear by the example of Nazianzen himself: His Father was a Bishop, his mother a virtuous Woman, famous in wonders, yet was not he himself Baptized until thirty yeares of age.  
When he sailed unto Athens,( as I take it) being of perfect age, {αβγδ}, he was not yet sealed with baptism. And in the story of his life, it is said, {αβγδ}, &c. He was Baptized when he was full thirty yeares of age: either then the father of Gregory, and his mother did not know this Tradition, or else they did wilfully transgress it. But against the Authorities brought, I shal allege one, who is more one on than any that they can truly city:( for justin Martyr is fraud lently cited by Mr. Marshall, his own Conscience persuading him, that it was not Iustins book which goes under his name, as appears in Mr. Marshall, page. 3.) Tertullian is the man, who in the latter end of his Sermon concerning baptism, dispures who are to be Baptized, and determines it thus, omni petenti dato, give to every one that asketh it. Aetate ●unctatio Baptismi utilior, &c: The de●… king of baptism, is more profitable in age: But especially concerning children, of whom he saith, fiant Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint. Let them be made Christians when they are able to know Christ, with many such like things in the same place, one whereof I cannot forget, Quid enim necesse est( si non tam necesse est) sponsores, etiam periculo, ingeri? What need is there for Godfathers to bee brought in in the time of danger? where he concludes, that Infants have no need of baptism. But one thing I may not pass by, viz. That those words, ( Si non ●am necesse) are confessed to bee added to the Author by the Commentator, that he might mitigate the Authors opinion concerning baptism of Infants. When I look upon this dealing, and consider what the Doctor hath done in the citation of Nazianzen, I have cause to say, as did your Fathers, so do ye.  
For the authority of Austin. I answer, that Ludovicus vives, a man well skilled in Austin, believed no such matter: for in his Annotations upon the 27. chap of the 1 Book De Civ. Dei, he hath these words, O limb nemioem consuevisse Baptizare, &c. That of old it was the custom to baptize none, unless they were of full age, and did desire baptism in their own persons, and did understand what it was to be Baptized. And cardinal Bellarm. confesseth, that Erasmus was of the same mind. What becomes of your apostolical tradition?   

Argument. 10.  
All members of the Reformed Protestant Churches in christendom ought to conform their judgements to the harmony of the Protestant Confessions, 
Dr. Feanly. page. 53.  set forth by the consent of all Orthodox Churches, and firmly grounded upon Deductions, at least of holy Scripture, if not evident Texts.  
But the judgement of all the Reformed Churches, delivered in the harmony of their Confessions, is professedly for the Baptism of Infants,& expressly against this tenet of the Anabaptists.  
Ergo, Let the Anabatptists with it, Disclaim the name of Pretestants,& Children of the Reformed Churches, or renounce this their heresy: for Turpis pars quae non congruit toti.  
Answer. O man full of subtlety: How long will you labour to deceive? You have left out some words inferted in your mayor, viz. firmly grounded upon holy Scripture. We grant that these Confessions by you cited do seek to establish baptism of Infants. But that these confessions are in this point grounded upon Scripture, is the thing we deny. And this is that wee do profess, that wheresoever the Protestant Confessions do go hand in hand with holy Scripture, we do rejoice to follow them. But if they have swerved from the line, their example must not be our president: for wee have a more sure word of prophesy, whereunto ye do well, that ye take heed as unto a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star appear in your hearts, 2 Pet. 1.19. I answer again, as carded. Bellarmin well and truly observeth. The Protestants do confess the Bapt. of Infants with the mouth; but yet the whole course of their own positions do indeed overthrow it. And I can prove, that the Church of England in maintaining the baptism of Infants, swerveth from her own principles. But I will go no farther at this time; onely I shall entreat the Lord to open the eyes of those that in this point cannot yet see: that they may consider with understanding what hath been written.   
FINIS.