THE PLEA FOR INFANTS AND ELDER PEOPLE, concerning their Baptism. OR A PROCESS OF THE PASSAGES between M. john Smyth and Richard Clyfton: Wherein, first is proved, That the baptizing of Infants of believers, is an ordinance of God. Secondly, That the rebaptising of such, as have been formerly baptized in the Apostate Churches of Christians, is utterly unlawful. Also, The reasons and objections to the contrary, answered. Divided into two principal heads.  

I. Of the first Position, concerning the baptizing of infants.  
II. Of the second Position, concerning the rebaptising of Elder people.   Mat. 7. 15. 16. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves, you shall know them by their fruits. 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2. But there were false Prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false Teachers among you, which privily shall bring in damnable Heresies, even denying the Lord that hath bought them, & bring upon themselves swift damnation. And many shall follow their damnable ways, by whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 
Printed at Amsterdam by Gyles Thorp. Anno 1610.   

To all them which are called and sanctified of God the Father, and returned to jesus Christ.  
LEt it not seem strange (dear brethren) neither cause any to distaste the right ways of the Lord, because from amongst us some have departed from the faith, and are turned after errors: For the holy Ghost hath foretold us▪ that even from amongst ourselves, there should men arise speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after them, Act. 20. 30. And with such, the primitive apostolic Churches were greatly molested, and that whilst the Apostles were living. john doth also witness that in his time there were many Antichrists. they went (saith he) out from us. 1. joh. 2. 18. 19 meaning even out of the bosom of the Church. And our Saviour saith, many false Prophets shall arise and deceive many. Mat. 24. 11. And Peter saith, many shall follow their damnable ways, 2 Pet. 2. 2. All which may teach us not to be offended when the like doth befall to the Churches in our times:  it is incident to God's people, not only to be persecuted by enemies without, but also grieved with false brethren, that under pretence of more sincerity of religion, will seek to destroy the faith, being the very instruments of Satan, whom he subborneth to deceive the unstable and to corrupt their minds from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2. Cor. 11. 3. These things being considered, it behoveth us to mind the exhortations and warnings given by the Apostles of Christ, that is, to stand fast and keep the instructions which we have been taught. 2 Thes. 2. 15. And not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they be of God or no: for many false Prophets are gone into the world, 1 joh. 4. 1. And the rather it stands us the more upon to take heed to ourselves and be admonished by the word of the Lord, because, as the Devil on the one hand, prevaileth in these our times, by worldly arguments, of profit, pleasure and the like●, to keep many back from walking in the right ways of God: So on the other hand, (under glorious shows of pretended holiness) hath he deceived many, and drawn them into damnable heresies, labouring to poison the fountains of wholesome doctrine, revealed in these last days unto his Church: And wher●● God in mercy hath preached unto us the Gospel (that formerly he had ●eached to Abraham our father, and by the Apostles unto both jews ●d Gentiles) that a long time hath been greatly obscured through the ●oggy mists of popish doctrines, now seeketh to spoil the church of Christ ●ereof altogether, by that detestable heresy of Anabaptism, which as ● hath overspread many places, to the great annoyance of the people of God: So (as a leprosy) hath it at this present infected some of our own ●ntryemen, who are not only tainted therewith, but have revolted frō●e faith, and taken upon them the profession thereof, and published their ●reticall opinions in our own language. For there is lately set forth 〈…〉 rtayne Treatise of theirs, entitled, The Character of the Beast, ●c. A title as it is most blasphemous (being understood of the baptising ●f infants) so is the book itself full of many dangerous errors, wherewith ●he simple may easily be deceived. And seeing the same book is sent over ●to our own country, and is spread abroad into the hands of many▪ I have thought good also, to give warning to all that loves the Lord jesus and ●e careful of their own salvation, to take heed thereof. And for this ●nd have published this Treatise following, containing a Process of the Passages between Mr. Smyth (the author of that book) and me, wherein ●l (whose eyes it shall please God to open) may see the notable sleights of Sa●han by this his instrument, who first, sought to disgrace the holy Scriptures translated, and to cast them out of God's worship, and now in his Charcter, to destroy the covenant of grace (which of old was given to Abraham including the children with the parents,) and to bring in a new Gospel that excludes the children of the faithful both from the covenant and baptism the seal thereof. I had no purpose of publishing these my writings, had not the occasion been offered by Mr. Smyth in printing our former private Passages: but so having done, I could 〈…〉 no less, then to publish these my labours also, unless I should have been injurious to the truth.  I had received the copy of Mr Smiths' book in written hand, which he purposely sent unto me, as a reply to my former answer, to his two Anabaptistical Positions, whereunto I had almost finished this my second answer before his book was printed. Otherwise (if I had not been so far interessed therein) I should have been glad if this work had been taken in hand by others more sufficient than myself. But thus God having disposed to employ me in this part of his service at this present: I shall desire the godly Reader, to accept this my small endeavours, proceeding from an heart, earnestly striving to maintain that faith, which was once given unto the Sainsts and to supply my weakness with his better labours, as there shallbe cause. And withal to take notice, that I have here set down the whole Passages (touching this controversy) between Mr Smyth and me. First, his Positions with the Reasons annexed. 2. My answer thereunto written in private unto him, which (without my knowledge) he published together with his reply, committing that against me therein, which he condemneth in Mr Barnard against himself. Parallels in the epistle to the Reader. Thirdly, the Sum of his Reply. And lastly, my Answer thereunto. So that the Reader may see how these things have (from the beginning) passed between us. The Lord give us to discern the truth from falsehood, to look to ourselves that we lose not the things which we have done, but that we may receive a full reward. And now unto him that is able to keep us that we fall not, & to present us faultless before the presence of his glory with joy: To God only our Saviour be glory and Majesty, Dominion and power, both now and ever.  
Amen. Richard Clifton.   

AN ANSWER TO Mr SMITHS' Epistle to the Reader, which he hath directed,  
To every one that loveth the truth in sincerity.  
BY these words, it seemeth Mr Smyth would intimate, that his care is to maintain the truth, and that in sincerity he loveth the same, whereas in deed, he hath destroyed the faith, is become an enemy to the covenant of grace, & a perverter of the right ways ●f the Lord: and withal so confident in defence of his heresies, that he ●●es to challenged a combat with all the Separation: belike to fear men ●ith great words, and to boast with Rabsake, as if his forces were invin●ble: But what they are it will appear in this discourse following.  
In the Epistle itself, first Mr Smyth seemeth to excuse their mutability in Religion, saying: It may be thought most strange that a man should oft times change ●s religion, and it cannot be accounted a commendable quality in any man to make ●ny alterations, etc. this must needs be true (and we confess it) if one condition be 〈…〉 itted, that the Religion which a man changeth be the truth, for otherwise to change 〈…〉 lse religion, is commendable, etc.  
But Mr Smyth and his company have changed a true Religion for a ●alse, and therefore that can be no commendable quality in them: And ●uch inconstant persons (as himself saith) cannot escape the deserved imputation ●folly or weakness of judgement therein. Thus out of his own mouth pronouncing sentence against himself: For that alteration of him & his company, ●s not from falsehood to truth, but the leaving of the truth (which formerly ●hey professed) & a taking up of error after error: first calling into question, whether the scriptures being translated into other tongues, were not the writings of men. Differenc. pag. 10. Then casting the reading of them out of the worship of God, affirming that there is no better warrant to bring translations of Scripture into the Church, and to read them as parts and helps of worship, then to bring in expositions, paraphrasts and sermons upon the Scripture, seeing all these are equally human in respect of the work, equally divine in respect of the matter they handle. Differ: pag. 10. And for the same cause, separated themselves from other Churches that did read and use the same in their public meetings. After this, they dissolved their Church (which before was conjoined in the fellowship of the Gospel & profession of the true faith) & Mr. Smyth being Pastor thereof, gave over his office, as did also the Deacons, and devised to enter a new communion by renouncing their former baptism, and taking upon them an other, of man's invention, bringing in an other Gospel, besides that which was preached to Abraham, Gen. 12, 3, & 17. 7. etc. Gal. 3, 8. And now again, many of this new communion have separated themselves from the rest, holding the error about the incarnation 
●f this new baptised cō●union ●ere are re●ayning as ●is reported ●t above ●. persons, ●l the rest ●e run in ● further ●rors.  of Christ. An other sort are excommunicate, namely M. Smyth & divers with him, for holding (as it is reported by some that were of them) that their new washed company is no true church, and that there cannot be in a church the administration of baptism & other ordinances of Christ, without Officers, contrary to his former judgement, practice & writings, & yet resteth not but is enquiring after a new way of walking, (as the same persons affirm) breeding more errors, as is strongly suspected, and by his manuscripts partly appears. Whereby it is manifest, that these men can not clear themselves of instability & changeableness in Religion, but are guilty of that inconstancy that is worthy reproof and damnable.  
Further he saith, For a man of a Turk to become a Jew, of a jew a Papist, of a Papist a Protestant, are all commendable changes etc. so that not to change religion is evil simply: & therefore that we should fall from Puritanisme to Brownism, and from Brownism to true christian baptism, is not simply evil in itself, except it be proved that we have fallen from the true religion, etc.  
Here Mr. Smyth would make the world believe (as it is the manner of all heretics) that their alterations were doings forward to further truths, and therefore commendable. But if their true Christian baptism, (whereof they boast) prove a notable heresy, (as it is indeed, & in this Treatise is proved) than his comparison holds not, but rather their estate is like to those in 1 Tim. 1, 19 that put away faith & a good conscience, and as concerning faith, have made shipwreck. And that bring in damnable heresies. 2 Pet. 2. 1. etc. denying the covenant of grace, and the lawful use of the scriptures, etc. to bring upon themselves swift damnation, if God give them not speedy repentance.  
Next M. Smyth sets down the questions controverted, and hereafter answered, affirming that this controversy is between them and the Separation, whereas he might as well have said, between them and all christian churches, that have been or are at this day: for it is not we alone that ●ndemne these their heresies, but both the ancient and modern Churls, and writers in all ages, (as with one consent) have opposed against ●em.  
But where he pretends the publishing of this controversy, to be for the ●ay of God the manifesting of the truth to our own nation, and the destruction of ●man of sin, he giveth us to mind how Satan hath bewitched his soul ● believe that such can be the effects of his heritical opinions. It is the policy of the Devil to propound glorious ends, to such as he seduceth, as ● Evah and others, & teacheth his Ministers to do the like, that by fair & ●attring speeches, and shows of good, they might more easily deceive the ●mple. And therefore seeing we are forewarned that there shallbe false Teacher's ●mongst us, which privily shall bring in damnable heresies, it behoveth us ●o mind the counsel of the Apostles, to try the spirits, 1. joh. 4. 1. And not ●o be carried about with every wind of doctrine. Ephe. 4. 14.  
Now happily, (saith Mr. Smyth,) some man will wish that the controversy had 〈◊〉 with the Rabbis of the Separation, and not with Mr Clyfton, whom they ca 〈…〉 iate to be a weak man, unable to deal in so great a controversy: well, let the Reader take notice that though it be Mr Clyftons' pen, yet it is not only Mr Clyftons' 〈…〉 se & def●nce, but his allegations & Reasons are the best plea of the greatest Rabbis thē●elves, And if they can say better, they may now speak, for by publishing answer to their Reasons, we do challenge all the separation in special to the combat.  
This Challenger would fain have the world to take notice, that he deals with an adversary that is too weak to try out this controversy with him, & so to forestall men's judgements before ever they come to the reading of my answer. And because he would not be seen to be the Author himself of my disgrace, he imputeth this report to the Rabbis of the Separation (as it pleaseth him in his taunting manner to term them) who (I am persuaded) are guiltless thereof. But if any had so said unto him in private, yet doth he in publishing the same, break the bounds of love. For mine own part, whether any have so spoken or not, it shall not offend me, I know the Lord measureth his gifts to every one as he wil 1 Cor. 12. 8.— 11. I praise God for that I have, and do not envy, but rejoice in the graces that God bestoweth upon others, and pray that they may use them to his glory, and to edification. Notwithstanding though Mr Smyth think me to weak to encounter with him, yet the Lord assisting me, I mean not for all these his disgraceful speeches, to yield him the cause, or give back one foot from the defence thereof, knowing that the truth which I contend for: will discover and convince his damnable errors: the which though he set a glorious show upon (as a merchant of false wares) by misapplying of Scriptures: yet will the falsehood of them appear, to all such whose eyes God shall open, to discern between the truth and lies. Moreover if I in my weakness, make to appear how unconscionably & untruly Mr Smyth dealeth against the truth: his glorious boasting and Philistine valour, will have the more disgrace, then if he had dealt with men of greater gifts: and God shall have the greater glory, to foil such a warlike Champion with weak and base means.  
As for my allegations and reasons which he saith, are the best plea of the greatest Rabbis, etc. herein he both taxeth me and wrongeth them, me, as if I had been but their pen man in my former answer; them, in saying my reasons are their best plea, whereas he hath had neither conference with them, by speeches or writing about these matters, save only with Mr Robinson. And therefore so to speak without trial, bewrays but the bitterness of his spirit against them. Thus Mr Smyth preparing way for his great challenged, by pretending mine insufficiency, calls forth the Rabbis (as he terms them) to speak, challendging the whole Separation to the combat: whereas a wise man would have spared such speeches until he had seen the issue of his combat, already attempted: and not thus to provoke others, until he had greater likelihood of victory. As for those reverend men whom now he calls upon for better, if they can say better, they have already said and written so much against his errors, as I am assured he will never be able to answer, and when it pleaseth him to reply, (if there be occasion) I doubt not but as they have done, so the Lord will enable them to batter down with spiritual weapons, his greatest forces, that he shallbe able to raise against the truth.  
And whereas Mr Smyth seemeth to insinuate, that by his answering of my reasons, he hath answered theirs, herein he is deceived: for the Reasons in my former answer, (be they what they are,) I acknowledge for mine own, (though written unto him without any purpose of publishing) if therefore weakness be found in them, let it be imputed unto me, and neither to our Teachers, (who had no hand in setting down thereof) nor yet to the truth itself. As for his challenging of the whole Separation, and other his intemperate speeches in his epistle, they bewray in him a malicious heart against our poor Church,) and puffed up with too lofty a conceit of his 〈◊〉 strength. Did ever any of the Prophets or servants of God thus chal 〈…〉 ge a combat with the Lords people? in deed such braving speeches 〈…〉 eeded from Goliath, 1 Sam. 17. 10. that defied the whole host of Is 〈…〉; and from Rabsake. 2. King. 18. 23-25. against the jews: But ●as never heard that an Israelite professing the religion of God, used 〈◊〉 proud chalendges, as this man doth.  
I pray you Mr. Smyth, wherein hath the separation offended you, or my wise wronged you, that you desire rather to quarrel with them, then with other Churches holding the same truth in this thing, against you? To the Elders and brethren were you most welcome, and glad they were of you, so long as you walked in the faith with them. Why is it that you ●●e become their adversary? is it because they have rejected you, and your company for your errors, which you wilfully maintain? Alas, they must ●o it, unless they would become unfaithful to God.  
Next after this Challenge, Mr. Smyth chargeth the separation with a 〈◊〉 constitution, ministry, worship and government, saying.  
Be it known to all the Separation, that we account them in respect of their con 〈…〉tion, to be as very an harlot, as either her mother England, or her grandmother 〈◊〉 is. And although we held her a true church in our ignorance, yet now being better informed etc. we protest against her as well for her false constitution, as for her false Ministry, worship and government etc. the false constitution is of infants baptized.  
Concerning the constitution of a Church we do not hold that any visible Church can stand only of infants, neither that their baptism doth give the being thereof 1. Seeing there can be no baptizing of infants, where there are not first Elder people, with whom they come under the covenant of God 2. Baptism is an other thing divers from the Church, Ephe. 4. 4. 5. and it maketh none to be the people of God, only it sealeth up to be his people, them that are so formerly by virtue of his covenant. 3. Else Turks or Indians professing the Popish Religion being baptised, should be a true Church (for Mr. Smyth holdeth the 
† Charact. pag. 51.  baptism of such to be true baptism, if so they confess their faith & sins) 4. Then circumcision should have made the Sichemites a true Church (for that which baptism can do now in constituting of a Church, circumcision could do then) wherefore I say, baptism is an ordinance of Christ given to his Church to seal up his covenant to his people: but is not that whole essential constitution thereof. And therefore our baptizing of infants (if it were admitted to be unlawful) can not make the constitution of our Church to be false, much les being the commandment of the Lord, can it so do. And thus Mr. Smyth faileth in the first point of his charge. As for the other things he chargeth us withal, shall receive answer in their due place.  
But here further he proceedeth to affirm. That no man can separate from England, as from a false Church, except he also do separate from the baptism of Engl. etc. Whereunto he may be answered, that it will not follow, that they which separate from a Church standing in apostasy, or sin, must separate from the baptism therein received, or yet from any other of God's ordinances there retained. We are commanded to forsake the whoredoms of Babylon, Apoc. 18. 4. but not to separate from any ordinance of Christ that is found therein, save only from the pollutions thereof. Yea Mr. Smyth cannot deny, that a Church standing in Apostasy, is to be separated from, when the baptism therein received (if it be of such as confess their faith and sins) is still to be retained, for such baptism, (saith he) i● true Baptism, though administered by Antichristians, Character p. 51. 2. Those israelites that separated from jeroboams Church (which stood in Apostasy) & went to jerusalem 2. Cor. 30. 11. did not separate from their circumcision therein received: No more are we from our baptism, as afterward is proved. As for his Reason.  
That the baptism of England cannot be true and to be reteayned, and the Church of England false and to be rejected etc. It is but as if he should say, the circumcision of Israel cannot be true and to be retained, and the Church of Israel false and to be rejected, I speak of Israel being in Apostasy. And therefore thus I answer unto it, that baptism retained in Rome and so in all Apostate Churches▪ is baptism, and is not to be repeated, as in the latter part of this Treatise, is proved. And seeing Mr. Smyth holdeth there 
Character. ●ag. 51.  may be † true baptism in an Apostate Church if they confess their faith, doth not he cross himself here to say, neither can the Church of England possibly be false, except the baptism be false? Now if true baptism may be in an apostate Church as he affirmeth, than a Church may be false (that is apostate) & not baptism, by his own reasoning. Yet this man chargeth us with contradiction, uz. to say, England hath a false constitution, Engl. hath a true baptism. We hold baptism so to be true in an apostate church, as circumcision was in the 〈…〉 ate Church of Israel, & otherwise we do not affirm. Now concerning 〈…〉 ptising of infants, Mr. Sm. thus proceedeth, saying, It seemeth to us th● unreasonable heresy, of all Antichristianism, for considering what baptism is: An 〈◊〉 is no more capable of baptism than is any unreasonable, or insensible creature. ●d then addeth 3. Reasons against it, 1. from his own description baptism, saying: baptism is not the washing with water, but it is the baptism of 〈…〉 it, the confession of the mouth, and washing with water, etc.  
These blasphemous speeches, against the ordinance of Christ bewrayeth ●f what spirit this man is: God's ordinance is a most unreasonable heresy with ●im, yea the most unreasonable of all Antichristianisme. Thus justifying all the idolatries of the Papists and their detestable heresies in comparison of baptizing of infants. Besides his odious and blasphemous comparison, af●rming Infants no more capable of baptism, than the unreasonable and insensible 〈…〉 ures. So that in his judgement, a horse, yea a block may aswell be baptized, as the children of the Church, whom the Lord of his free grace 〈…〉ceiveth together with their parents, to be his by an everlasting covenant, Gen. 17. 7. and therefore are holy, and capable of the blessing of Christ, 1 Cor. 7. 14. jer. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. Mark. 10. 16. as hereafter is sufficiently 〈…〉 ved. And therefore to compare these infants with unreasonable and insensible creatures, as touching the participation of Baptism, argueth the author of such comparisons, to be void of spiritual sense and reason, and more to follow the corruption of his own heart in hatred against the truth, then to mind what he affirmeth.  
Concerning his description of Baptism and those Scriptures which he quoteth for proof thereof, see them answered hereafter, pag. 94. where I have showed, 1. that the baptism of the Spirit, is no part of that outward Ceremony of baptism that is administered by man, but is the inward work of the spirit in the elect of God. 2. That the confession of faith & of sins, is no part of the Sacrament of Baptism: seeing the confession of sins, is so often to be repeated, as we transgress against the Lord, & likewise of faith, as we have occasion administered unto us. And therefore baptism, which is given to be the seal of God's covenant to his Church, is the baptizing of the faithful and their seed with water, into the name of the father, and of the son and of the holy Ghost. Mat. 3. 11. with Mat. 28. 19 & of this, infants are capable. neither is their baptism folly, (as Mr Smyth saith) but it will prove his fully to make man's confession a part of the Sacrament, which oftentimes ● hypocrical, (as it was in S. Magus) & to shut out of God's covenant who● the Lord hath accepted. And it will prove his folly to deny baptism to infants, because they cannot perform such actions, as in other respects are required of the elder sort that are to be baptized, who also not having transgressed in like manner, therefore need not so to confess. And it will prove his folly, to deny that an infant can be baptized with the spirit: for so to say, is to deny, that an infant can be saved. But of these things hereafter.  
His 2. Reason is taken from john's baptism, framed thus.  
john's baptism was the baptism of repentance. Infants have not Repentance, and therefore can not have the baptism of Repentance.  
To this Argument I answer thus, 1. That repentance is required of such as have actually transgressed, not as the proper cause of baptism, but as a necessary fruit of faith, & condition of the Gospel required of them, that being of years are to be received into the church: whether before or since Christ's coming. But of the infants of the faithful, whether of those that are newly received into the church, or of believers borne in the church, it is not so. Ergo etc.  
2. Repentance was not required of the infants of the jews before they were circumcised: no more is it to be required of our infants before baptism, these two Sacraments being the same in use.  
3. If Baptism of repentance, be understood only of the time past, & not of the time to come, then is that a false exposition of john's baptism. For as he taught that those that came to be baptized should repent: so also his baptism did preach a continual dying to sin, or practise of repentance▪ all our life long, Rom. 6. 4. And therefore though children cannot repent of actual sin, which they are not to do, they having not committed the same: yet is their baptism the baptism of repentance: seeing it preacheth continual mortification & repentance to the receivers thereof, which is one true use of baptism.  
His third reason is from the testimony of Tertullian & Eusebius. The words of Tertullian, (as Mr, Sm. himself hath englished them) are these.  
Therefore to defer & not to hasten baptism, is more profitable for the condition disposition & age of every person, but especially as concerning young children, for what▪ 〈…〉 there to bring sureties into danger for the baptizing of Infants, if there be no 〈…〉 of hastening the baptizing of infants. Seeing the Sureties are disabled often 〈…〉 to perform their promise, both by reason of mortality, and of the evil dispositi● s●●e children, when they come to years, for whom they promised in baptism, etc. ● First, concerning Tertullian it is to be noted, that thus he writeth, ●n he was fallen into the opinions of the Cataphriges or Montanists, ●● so held divers errors, as Augustine and others have observed out of ● works. And therefore being thus departed from the faith; Let ●e Reader judge if this man be a competent witness in this case. Yet ●th not this man affirm that infants were not baptized in his time, but ●ther the contrary, in that he makes mention of Sureties for infants: saying, what necessity is there to bring Sureties into danger for the baptizing of infants, ●hich words do plainly argue, that the Church then used to baptize in●ts.  
2. Again, that which he affirmeth was his own private judgement ●d his Reasons are of no weight, as the bringing of sureties into danger, and ●● the sureties are disabled oftentimes to perform their promise etc. such sureties ●ot being appointed of God. 3. P. Mart. Clas. 4. ca 8. affirmeth that ●●tullian denied Baptism to young men and young widows; and his own urds here related, do seem to intimate some such like thing, in saying, 〈…〉 far and not to hasten baptism, is more profitable for the condition, disposition and ●● of every person, And this he meaneth of others, then young children. For ●er he speaketh of young children, saying, especially concerning young children. ● 4. Crispen, State of the Church, pag. 47. 48. witnesseth that Tertullian brought ● extreme unction after baptism, the Sign of the Cross, offering for the dead, and ●er the like dreams of the Montanists. Now if Tertullia's judgement be ●and against infant's baptism, why not also for extreme unction the sign ●f the Cross, and the like his errors, seeing all these are fruits proceeding ●om the same tree?  
But thus this adversary careth not who the witness is, so he will speak in favour of his heresy, let him be Montanist, Papist or what othersoever.  
But let it be further observed, that about Tertullia's time and after, some deferred their baptism, until they thought they should die, and so were not baptized until they fell into some great sickness, as Theodosius & others. And this seemeth to be Tertullia's error; as if baptism was for washing away of sins past, and not to come.  
Concerning that which Eusebius reporteth of Athanasius his bap 〈…〉 of children in sport, I have answered, pag. 109. and set down reasons ● prove that those children were not children of the church, but of some o● the heathen, which were instructed in the faith of Christ by the church, but were not received into the communion of the same. These are the two Ancients that M. Smyth produceth against us, whereof neither of the● affirmeth that the church did not baptize infants in those times. Now to these two, I will oppose other two Ancients amongst many others, that do testify that infants in their times and before, were baptized, viz. Origin, who saith, that the church received from the Apostles, to give baptism to infants. lib. 5. ad Rom. And Augustine de Bap. contra Donatist. lib. 4. cap. 23. who speaking of the Baptism of Infants, saith, that which the whole church holdeth, neither is ordained by counsels, but always hath been holden, we are to believe to be delivered by Apostolical authority.  
The next corruption that the Separation is charged withal, is, to have a false ministery. Now the Ministers that we have are of Pastors & Teachers, called thereunto by election of the Church, according to these Scriptures, Eph. 4, 9 11, 12. Rom. 12, 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12, 28. Acts. 13, 1, 2. Revel. 1, 20. Nehem, 8, 1,- 8. Mat. 23, 2. Mal, 2, 7. Act. 14. 23. And practise of the primitive churches. And of this ministery of Pastors and Teachers M. Smyth himself approveth in his Principles, pag. 18. and in his Questions, and answers, pag. 8. printed this last year, 1609. he describing the officers of the Church, divides them, first into Bishops and Deacons, than the Bishops into Pastors, or Teachers, or Elders, and withal describeth the Pastor, to be a bishop over one particular Church, excelling in the word of wisdom. The Teacher, to be a Bishop over one particular church, excelling in the word of knowledge. The Governor, to be a Bishop of one particular visible Church, excelling in wise government. Thus hath he written: and yet we having no other ministery, than he himself approveth, chargeth us to have a false ministery, not caring to cross himself, so he may utter his bitterness against the Church of Christ.  
The 3. corruption this adversary chargeth us withal, is, false worship of reading books. This he saith, but proves it not. I will briefly set down our practice, that the Reader may take notice, how unjustly we are charged. 1. For prayer & giving of thanks, that is publicly performed by our Pastor or Teacher, who invocate the name of God & praise him for his benefits ●s the spirit directs their hearts to conceive and giveth utterance, & without the use of any book during that action, according to those ●ptures, Rom. 8. 26. 27. Eph. 6, 18, 19 Col. 4, 2. Act. 6, 4. Num. 6, 23. ●4.- 27. Nehem. 9, 3,- 38. Ezra. 9, 5,- 15. & 10. 1. joel. 2, 17.  
2. They read the holy scriptures, translated into our own language, ●me two or three chapters or more, as time will serve, showing briefly the ●eaning thereof. Which is warranted by these Scriptures. Neh. 8, 3,— 8. ●eut. 31, 11. Act. 15, 21. Col. 4, 16. 1 Thes. 5. 27. 1 Tim. 4, 13.  
3. The Pastor or Teacher taketh some Scripture, which they ordinarily allow, and after the reading thereof, do expound and apply the same, by doctrine, exhortation, etc. to the further edification of the church: according to these scriptures. Luk. 4. 16.- 21. Act. 8. 35. & 13, 15. and 26. 7. ● Tim. 4, 13. 2 Tim. 4, 2. And together with the preaching of the word, the Sacraments are administered after the rules of Christ, with prayer and thanksgiving, according to these Scriptures: Mat. 28, 19 1 Cor. 11, 23. etc. Act. 20, 7. etc.  
4. Some of the Psalms of David, before and after the exercise of the ●ord (the same being first read and opened by the Pastor or Teacher,) is ●ing of the whole church together to the praise of God, and our own edification, according to these Scriptures: Eph. 5, 19 Col. 3, 16. Mat 26, 30. Act. 16, 25. Psal. 95. & 92, 1. & 66. 2. & 89. 1.  
Lastly, each one as he is able, contributeth to the Treasury, whereby the Officers & poor of the church, are maintained: according to these scriptures. 1 Tim. 5, 17. 18. 1 Cor. 9, 7-14. Gal. 6. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 16. Luk. 2●. 1. 2 3. 4. Mat. 26, 9 10. 11. Act. 2, 42. 45, 46. & 4, 34. 35.- 37. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. ● Cor. 8, 4, 1●. And this is that worship and service we publicly practise, which Mr. S. calleth false worship: how truly, let the Reader now judge.  
Fourthly, concerning the Government of our church, (which also this adversary taxeth) first, the Governors that we have, are such as Christ hath appointed in his Church, viz. Pastors, Teachers, & Elders, (and such as M. S. 
† Principles. pag. 18. Questions & Answers pag. 8.  affirmeth the Eldership to consist of) the two former both teaching and ruling, the Elders employed in the government only, elected of the church for the overseing, governing & guiding of the same, by the rules of Christ, whose offices and authority of Ruling, are warranted by these scriptures. 1 Tim. ●. 5. 17. Rom. 12. 6. 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 5. with Rev. 2. 2. 14. 15. Act. 20. 28. Heb. 13, 8. 24.  
Again, as touching the Censures, we proceed therein after Chri●●s 〈…〉 private faults using private admonitions, and for public, open reb 〈…〉cording to these Scriptures. Mat. 18. 15.— 17. 1. Tim. 5. 20. 2. Cor. 2. 6. And when the offenders continue obstinate in their sins after due admonition and conviction by the word of God; the Church being gathered together, the Pastor, or Teacher or one of the Elders in the name & by the power of our Lord jesus Christ pronounceth the sentence of excommunication against them, all the brethren consenting, according to these Scriptures. Mat. 18. 17.— 19 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. etc. 1. Tim. 1. 20. And if the excomunicate do repent, he is with the Churches consent received again into the communion thereof, by some of the Governors according to these Scriptures. 2. Cor. 2. ●7.— 11. Mat. 18. 18.— 20.  
What Mr. Smyth can fault in this or in any other of our practices, he may at his leisure discover the same, if he be not already satisfied.  
Now besides these false imputations, it pleaseth Mr. Smyth to utter against this Church many uncharitable and reproachful speeches: wishing also, As the Tyrant wished concerning the people of Rome, that all their heads were joined into one etc.  
To pass by his tart and bitter speeches unbeseeming a professor of the Gospel, concerning his wish, I do certify him thus much, that if it were granted, that the Separation had but one head, his wooden sword of man's doctrine, will never be able to smite it of. Well may he carry the Tyrant's mind, but for his wish, I trust he shall find a like effect thereof, as the Tyrant did of his, who contrary to his expectation, found the people of Rome not to have one head, but many hands to smite of his head: So this wisher shall, find that the Separation hath many hands to convince his abominable errors.  
And whereas he desireth the Separation that they will not in craftiness withdraw from the combat, as hitherto they have done in the matter of the Translation, Worship, and Presbytery, etc. He himself now knoweth that he hath answer to all these things, and if any delay hath been herein, it was not any withdrawing through craftiness, as he falsely chargeth us, but we saw him so mutable and inconstant, and his latter writings to overthrow his former, that his own works would be a sufficient confutation thereof: And now that there was so great occasion of answer, and that he so insulted upon the differing thereof, he hath his answer given him. For 〈…〉 his speeches, of charging and challendging us to the defence of ●rors, I hope he will stay his pen henceforth from such vanity, seeing ●●●e not ashamed, or yet neglect to undertake the defence of that truth ● profess, and to manifest that he is a defender of errors and not we, as ●e scanderously reporteth of us.  
Furthermore, Mr Smyth requires of the Separation, and of all men, not ● impute unto them, The denying of the old Testament, the Lords day, the ●●●●stracy, and humanity of Christ. Why this request should be made, I know ●ot, unless they would bear the world in hand, that they are not tainted ●ith these errors, which other anabaptists do hold. Concerning the ●st of them, Mr. Sm. affirmeth that the Lord made with his people under ●e old Testament, a carnal covenant, denying that everlasting covenant in Christ to be given unto them, or circumcision to be the seal thereof: He ●so denieth the seed of the faithful to be within the covenant of grace, ●yther before or since Christ's coming, contrary to Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. ●9. And therefore I cannot see, but that the denying both of the old and ●ew Testament, in this respect, may justly be imputed unto him, as in this treatise following it will appear.  
For their denying of the Lords day, as yet we have little to say, notwith●anding it is reported that some of their company, makes question thereof.  
But concerning the Magistracy, Mr. Smyth bewrayeth his unsoundness ● these words, But of Magistrates converted to the faith and admitted into the Church by baptism, there may questions be made, which to answer we cannot if we ●●●ld, when such things fall out, the Lord we doubt not will direct us into the truth concerrning that matter.  
Here let the Reader observe how they plead ignorance in the matter of the Christian Magistrate, if so they thought of his Authority, that he being of the Church, was to bear the sword, and them of the Church to obey him, as having civil power over them, and whom he might command in defence of Religion, & of his country to take up arms; then needed not he thus to speak. For by his words they give us to conjecture, that they think more may be yielded to an heathen Ruler, then to a Christian Magistrate. If they be clear in this point, they may so explain their minds. Also in this pleading ignorance of the Magistracy, they seem to tax the new Testament, not to be so plain, as Mr Smyth affirmeth, where he saith, All the ordinances of the new Testament are plainly taught by C 〈…〉 his disciples. Character, pag. 34. Now if all things be taught in the new Testament, why then can he not answer those many questions that may be made about the Christian Magistrate, or why looks he for new direction? well: this I perceive, that either he must deny the authority of the Christian Magistrate, or be driven to confess that the writings of the Apostles are not plain enough to describe his office and Authority, without the Scriptures of the old Testament, from which if it be lawful to reason concerning this matter of the Magistracy, than I hope it cannot be denied, but so it is lawful to do, for other ordinances also.  
Touching the error of the Incarnation of Christ, which also Mr. Smyth desireth may not be imputed unto them. It is well known that many of their company holding that error about the incarnation, are separated from the rest. And Mr. Smyth himself (as some amongst them have reported) maketh a question about the first matter of Christ's human nature as if it were not a point of faith to believe that it was of the virgin, though it be to be believed that the second matter was nourished in her womb. Whether his hearers do wrong him in such reports, or how he resteth satisfied, it is best known to himself. And be it, that he stand clear of this error, yet is be tainted with the errors of general redemption and free will, else why hath he given forth these Positions? 1. Christ's Redemption stretcheth to all men. 2. Man hath not lost the faculty of willing any good thing that is showed him. And with all added thereunto his Reasons in defence thereof.  
Now let the Reader judge what cause he had to desire, that these things should not be imputed unto them.  
Lastly, Mr. Smyth taketh upon him to advertise our Church, saying: Let the Separation be advertised, that whereas they do so confidently through their▪ self-love, & self conceit, fill their mouths with heresy and heretics, as thereby they would fear Babes, that therein they tread in the steps of all the Antichristians their predecessors etc.  
For this his advertisement, if any have spoken otherwise then is meet, I am no Patron of any such speeches, but if it was lawful for john to call the Phariseis Generation of vipers, And Paul to say to Elimas', Oh full of subtlety & all mischeiffe etc. then is it not simply unlawful, to use such speeches, so it be for reproof, and not for reproach. Therefore to call them heretics and their opinions heresies, (it being true and spoken in detestation of their errors, not of their persons;) I see no evil in so saying, see these places. Io. 8. 44. 2. Pet. 2. 1. 2. 1. Io. 2. 18. Act. 13. 10. Gal. 3. 1. Rev. 2. 6. 15. And if this be a fault in us, why doth Mr. Smyth fill his mouth with Antichristian errors, so calling those truths which we hold? Hath he a dispensation so to speak against the truth, and yet to blame us for calling their false doctrines, heresy? I should rather have thought, that he ought to have advertised himself for these reproachful & slanderoous speeches that he hath uttered against our Church, & the Teachers thereof, calling them 
† Char●● Epistle the Re●  Rabbis of the Separation. The greatest Rabbis. And thus speaking to the Church. Be it known to the Separation, that we account them in respect of their constitution as very an harlot as either her mother England or her Grandmother Rome. We protest against her, as well for her false constitution, as for her false Ministry, worship, and Government. I could wish as the Tyrant wished, Concerning the people of Rome, that all their heads were joined into one. We desire the Separation they will not in craftiness withdraw from the Combat. We require them, nay we charge them, yea we chalendg them to the defence of their errors. We protest against them to be a false Church. They tread in the steps of all the Antichristians their Predecessors. Let them take heed, that notwithstanding their sirens songs, they prove not Cages full of most ugly and deformed Antichristian Heretics. All these reproachful speeches, if not more, hath he published in less than a sheet of paper, besides, what are contained in his Book. And yet notwithstanding all these speeches have thus passed from him, he takes upon him to advertise us, for that we can justify against his doctrines & against themselves, for their obstinate defending of their errors. But where he chargeth us to call them Heretics, & their doctrines heresy, through self love and self conceatednes etc. If he had applied self love and conceit to himself, I take it he might more justly have done it, if we may judge by his words. As for self love and self conceit, we condemn in whomsoever. And howsoever we have our infirmities, I trust he shall not be able to tax any of us justly, of these imputations.  
And as Mr. Smyth wisheth us not to be wise in our own eyes, through pride, etc. we hope the Lord will so teach us. And we pray the Lord to give him a sight of his damnable heresies whereinto he is fallen, openly sinning in the publishing thereof, to the great dishonour of God, and grief of all the godly: and that the almighty may preserve all that are his chosen, from being poisoned with the same.  
Richard Clyfton.   

THE PROCESS OF THE PASSAGES between Mr john Smyth and Richard Clifton.  Mr Smyth. 


CERTAIN REASONS PROPOUNDED To Mr Rich. Clifton: concerning the two Propositions following.  
1. That infants are not to be baptized 

1. Because there is neither precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptized, by john or Christ's Disciples: Only they that did confess their sins, and confess their Faith were baptised, Marc. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37.  
2. Because Christ commandeth to make Disciples by teaching them: and then to baptise them: Mat. 28, 19 joh. 4. 1. but infants cannot by doctrine become Christ's Disciples: and so cannot by the rule of Christ be baptised.  
3. Because if infants be baptised, the carnal seed is baptised: and so the seal of the covenant is administered to them unto whom the covenant appertaineth not. Rom 9 8. which is a profanation.    
2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by Baptism. 

1. Because Churches are so to be constituted now after the defection of Antichrist, as they were first erected by the Apostles: But in the constitution of Churches the Apostles received in the members by baptism: go: So must we do now.  
2. Because true baptism is but one: but the baptism of Antichrist is not true baptism, and so not that one baptism of Christ: but all members of Christ must have true baptism.  
3. Because as the false Church is rejected and the true erected: the false Ministry forsaken, and the true received: So false worship, (and by consequent baptism) must ●e renounced, and the true baptism assumed.      Richard Clifton. 


AN ANSWER TO TWO anabaptistical OPINIONS. vid  
1. That Infants are not to be baptised.  
2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptism.    
ALthough with great sorrow I am forced to undertake this business against him that was dear unto me: yet being thereunto provoked by the sending to me these two Positions with certain reasons annexed under the Authors own hand: I thought it my part (although the unablest of many) to contend for the maintenance of the faith which was once given to the Saints. jud. 3. And by the help of God to put a brief answer to these opinions, which by the Churches in all ages have been and are condemned for heretical: the practice whereof I could wish might never have befallen to any of mine own country, especially to them that were partakers with me of the afflictions of Christ for the witnessing of his truth. And chief unto him, to whose charge both I and divers others had once purposed to have committed our souls had he not besides these broached some former opinions, both erroneous and offensive, whereby the truth (for which we suffer) is like to be the more blasphemed of the wicked & many hindered in our own country, that shall hear thereof, of whom we had great hope that they would have walked in the same faith with us. Notwithstanding for as much as I am informed, that the author hath promised upon the sight of his errors to confess the same, I do the more willingly take upon me this labour, praying the Lord to give a good issue, to his glory, for his mercy sake Amen.  Mr Smyth. 


A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truths, viz:  
1. That Infants are not to be baptized.  
2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptism.   These two truths are by you, Sir, in your answer, entitled, anabaptistical etc.  Rich: Clifton. 
Sir, Whereas you justify your two Positions to be two truths, and so ●title your Reply, A defence of two truths: And charge me with using of reproachful speeches in calling them anabaptistical. Hereunto I answer, ●irst, that your two Positions will no more prove two truths, then Ierobo●ns two calves proved two Gods, as in my former answer I have showed, ●nd shall (by God's grace) more fully manifest in this treatise following. Secondly, I deny to have used any reproach, by intituling your erroneous opinions, Anabatisticall. But yourself do sin in calling evil good, and darkness light: thereby bringing upon yourself, that fearful woe denounced by the Lord against such. Esa. 5. 20. If you repent not. 3. Whereas you bless God that yo● are accounted worthy to suffer rebuke for Christ's truth, & wish me to know that my reproach shall light upon mine own head, etc. I could wish you did not rejoice in vain, for there is a suffering for evil justly deserved, as well as for the truth, 1 Pet. 2. 20. The Jesuits some of them have suffered unto death, yet had they no cause of rejoicing therein, seeing they suffered for their due desert. And so your opinions being termed, anabaptistical, for their untruths, can bring no true comfort unto you in suffering for them, nor yet my reproach, (as you call it) any judgement upon my head, being warranted to give falsehood her deserved titles. Gal. 3. 1. Phil. 3. 2. Gal. 4. 9  
As for Christ and his truth which you say, are by me evil spoken of: it had been less sin in you to have stayed your pen from publishing of such slanders, unless you could have proved your Positions the truths of Christ, which I am sure you shall never be able to do.  Mr Smyth. 
In your Preface you avouch that your are provoked to write, I mervayle you should so speak: seeing your conscience telleth you did make the first quest or motion ●● Mrs' Bywater etc.  Rich: Clifton. 
For Answer hereunto, know you Sir, and let all men take notice that the thing which you charge me with is most untrue, for presently after you were fallen into these gross errors, came Mr Southworth & Mr Br●mhead two of your followers to my chamber (as they said) in kindness to see me, and entered conference with me concerning these opinions, saying that they had heard that I had been inclined that way when I was in England, with some persuasive speeches to consider of this your new walking, saying also, that you were willing to confer with me, and did wish that either I would come to you, or else if I were willing, you would take pains to come to me; to whom I answered, that I never had any thought of embracing such opinions, neither was willing to have any conference with you thereabout, which when they heard me so to say, they further did solicit me to write with you about these points, and said, that you would as willingly & as friendly write with me thereof, as you did in England in our former conference concerning excommunication and other differences then between you & me, offering if I would not begin, that yet I would vouchsafe to read and answer your writing; to whom I said again, that I would not write first or require your writing, (for I thought not to have any dealing with you,) yet being so importuned I told them that I would be content to read it, if you sent it me, but for Answer thereunto I I promised none, only I said I would consider thereof, and so do then as I thought good. This was the substance of my speeches to Mr Southworth and Mr Bromehead, and of theirs to me. Now if this had been true, that I had provoked you by any former speeches, it is very like they would have made some relation thereof, especially requiring that you might have conference with me, neither need you to have sent me word that you would write or confer (if so I pleased) and to desire either at my hands (as these men did testify,) if I had before moved you thereunto.  
But for witness hereof you produce, Mrs Bywater a gentlewoman ●at hath embraced your errors, with whom, after I had received your po●ions, which also she said she had seen) I had speech to this effect, that she ●ould be careful over herself how she entertained your new opinions, af●rming, that I was persuaded they were grevous errors, and prayed her ●stātly to stay a while until your positions might be answered, assuring her that I could by Gods help defend this truth we stand for against you, with some other words to like purpose.  
Now let the indifferent reader judge, if you have not greatly wronged ●e, to say that I did make the first request or motion of writing: nay your own act in writing first unto me, & your own speeches in this your 
* Pag. 1.  book which are these: Certain reasons propounded to Mr Rich: Clifton, concerning the two Popositions following, as also your adjuring us to answer you, or else you will proclaim us subtilely blind & leaders of the blind into the ditch, do witness the contrary. And that this business comes of yourself, though you seek to lay it upon my back, let your own conscience judge: as for mine own part, being so provoked, I could do no less than answer.  
2. You charge me with perverting of this scripture, Jude 3. and say, that I ●● neither to plead for Baal, nor contend for Antichristian errors:  
And I answer, that these being truths for which I contend, as have been proved sufficiently, and shallbe (God willing) as occasion serveth, more fully confirmed, then am I not guilty of any such imputation, but yourself is become faulty in calumniating the ordinance of Christ, viz: the baptism of infants, accounting it an Antichristian error, which I wish you well to consider of and not to add sin unto sin, both in pleading for error and in disgracing the truth and the professors thereof.  
Further you say, it will not help me that these two truths have been condemned for heresy by the Churches in all ages, for if the Apostles afford contrary to the succeeding ages that which is most ancient is the truth: I grant if you can prove, that the Apostles age affords contrary to the succeeding ages for the justifying of these your opinions that then you have good warrant of your side for calling them truths: but if the Churches which have condemned your positions for error, have agreed herein with the holy scriptures than I say, the brand of heresy lies justly upon them. And whereas you allege that many truths whereunto we are come, have been condemned for heretical, in as many ages as those truths which you defend: I answer that not many truths, if any which we hold, to my remembrance have been condemned in the ancient Churches for heresies. And suppose those Churches did fail in some things, (as every Church is subject to err, yet follows it not, that therefore they erred in condemning your opinions for heresy: some things I think you will grant are heresies which those ancient Churches succeeding the Apostles age did condemn, as those of Arius, Eutiches, Macedonius, and the rest: and then is not their judgement so lightly to be passed over, that no reckoning is to be made of what they have done agreeable to the scriptures. As for your errors we reject them not only because the ancient Churches have so censured them, but finding them contrary to the word of God, therefore we condemn them.  
3. Whereas I did fear your broaching of these and your former opinions, would be offensive, and to the hindering of the truth, this you pass over in presuming of the goodness of your cause, saying, if any be hindered from the truth, it will be their sin, but if you fear (you say) that your Antichristian Church will fall to the ground, I say, it is that which is appointed to perdition, and to perdition let it go.  
Indeed if any be hindered from the truth, by the publishing of the truth, it is their sin, Mat. 11. 6. but if you which have stood for the truth, shall now by publishing of error, cause the truth to be the more blasphemed, & give offence to weak professors, that is your sin, and willbe too heavy to be answered at the judgement day; if you repent not.  
And as for our Church which you blasphemously call Antichristian, know you that I do not fear the fall of it, for it is built upon the foundation of the Apostles & Prophets, jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, Ephe. 2, 20. which hath a sure promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mat. 16. 18. And therefore your Anathema cannot hurt us, but shall rebound back again whence it came.  
4. You say, though I have professed to forsake mine errors upon their discovery, and as I have practised, for which I am reproached among your brethren, yet I never profeessed my readiness to be perverted from the truth, which you call heresy, and therefore if you did undertake to write upon this ground, you might well have spared your pains and saved yourself from so grevous a sin, by pleading for Antichristian corruptions, etc.  
The ground of my persuasion concerning your willingness to yield unto the truth, did arise partly from that persuasion which I had of your sanctification, and partly from the speeches of the messengers before named, ●ho did affirm unto me, that if I could manifest by the word of God, ●hat it was error which you hold, you would acknowledge it: And still ●ou say if you be in error it is 
* Passages▪ page 71.  ignorantly. And therefore desirous of ●our good, I did undertake according to my small ability to manifest ●he truth unto you, by such reasons as I could at that present gather for the confirmation of the same; which, seeing you make so small account of, and answer me, that I might have spared my pains, and saved myself from sin, I am sorry in that respect that I did write, yet in regard of witnessing the ●ruth and performing a duty towards a brother fallen into error, I repent ●e not, neither yet of committing any grevous sin thereby, as you charge me withal, seeing I plead for that which is of Christ's, and not for Antichristian corruptions. And as for your errors so often graced by you with the title of truths, which you say, you never professed to be perverted from, I mervayle not greatly thereat, for heresy is a work of the flesh, Gal. 5. 20. that is easily and quickly embraced, but not so left, and herein differs from the truth; to the receiving whereof, we are hardly drawn, as both you and I had experience; but error drinketh as a pleasant potion, Rev. 18. 3. without resistance, and bewitcheth many that they should not obey the truth, described and plainly manifest in their sight, Gal. 3. 1. the poison whereof I am sorry hath so infected your soul, that you seem to be changed into the nature thereof, and to be as confident therein as in any truth of the gospel: and though you account my praying to be for an overthrow of the Lords truth, which is in deed for the conversion of you and that deceived company with you, from your errors,) yet will I pray still that God may open your eyes, if you belong to him to see your grevous fall, & glorify the truth of God, which in this your writing so greatly you have disgraced.  
Now I will come to answer the Positions with the reasons thereof, and first concerning the former which is this. 

1. That infants are not to be baptized.   Touching this first position, that Infants are not to be baptized, I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adhe●nts was one of the first that denied the baptism of infants, & 〈◊〉 after him Pelagius the heretic, against whom Augustine & others of the ancient fathers, have opposed and condemned for heresy, and that according to the scriptures, which by God's grace we shall together with them also further manifest, & prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulness of baptizing infants, which first I will untertake, and then answer the reasons to the contrary.  Mr Smyth. 
Now in the next place you make a special preface to the first point, affirming tha● baptism of infants was denied by Auxentius the Arrian, & by Pelagius etc.  Rich: Clifton. 
I said that Auxentius the Arrian was one of the first that denied the baptism of infants, and then Pelagius, whom Augustine and others refuted and condemned for heresy: and you answer thus, that one heretic condemned another, contrary to the scripture for the truth sake.  
That Augustine was an heretic and condemned Auxentius for the truth contrary to the Scripture resteth for you to prove if you can. I have already proved that the denying of Baptism to Infants, is an error, & you have not in all this your writing confuted the same as will appear in the answer. And here let it be observed that you acknowledge Auxentius & Pelagius to be heretics, & so these your errors to have been first broached by men justly condemned for heresy, for you say, one heretic condemned another.  
Further concerning the fathers by me alleged in the 6. page of my writing, to show the practice of Churches in baptizing of Infants, you pass them over with this answer, saying, I can prove that Augustine, Cyrill, Cyprian, Origine, Nazianzene, Ambrose and many others were as gross heretics, (if he be an heretic that holdeth an heresy) as Auxentius and Pelagius, etc.  
That these Fathers and others had their errors we do not deny, but that they were heretics, and such as did obstinately defend their errors, being convinced thereof by the word of God, is more I think, than you can prove: we do not say that the holding of every error makes an heretic: but when he that holds an error and persisteth obstinately therein after admonition, ● say that such a one is to be rejected, Tit. 3. 10. And though you could ●ove those fathers as gross heretics as Auxentius & Pelagius, as I know ●u can not in that sense as the Scripture taketh this word Heretic, yet ●is opinion of those Catabaptists is not thereby iustifed, for as an heretic ●ay hold some points heretical, so may he some truths. And you are to ●ove that those fathers did unjustly condemn Auxentius and Pelagius, ●r the denying of the baptism of Infants, or else you Answer not to the purpose.  
As for our acknowledging of the Ancient fathers to be Antichristian, ●t is more the● you have from me or can show that I have so affirmed: in deed ●n there times the churches were in declining, and through ignorance and careless taking heed to the word, Satan began to prepare way for Antichrist, but that we account them simply Antichristian as fallen into that deep Apostasy, we do not; they had some Ceremonies and other observances that we approve not of, yet retained they many of gods ordinances whereof Paedobaptistry is one: And where as you say it is no more to be respected 〈◊〉 the Ancient Churches than the Prelacy and read prayer in the same: we have learned by the word, to put difference between the things of God retained in Churches declining, and the inventions of men, though you cast out both together & account us Antichristian for the same: next you proceed to examine my Arguments from the scripture, alleged to prove that Infants are to be baptized.  

1. OF THE FIRST POSITION concerning the baptizing of infants.  
Rich: Clifton. 
Argument I.  
Gen. 17. 10. God made his covenant to Abraham and to his seed: from whence I reason thus.  
That covenant which God made with Abraham he commanded to be sealed to him and to all his seed, yea even to infants.  
But the covenant that we under the gospel do receive is the very same that was made to Abraham, etc.  
Therefore that is commanded to be sealed to us & to our seed, yea even to our infants, for so was that to Abrhams.  
The Major can not be denied, see Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12.  
The Minor is likewise as true, for the Apostle speaking of this covenant, Act. 2. 39 saith, the promise is made to you and to your children, and to all that are a far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant and promise that was made to Abraham, which they that were a far of, that is the Gentiles believing, do receive and were baptized into. And therefore is Abraham called the Father of many nations, Gen. 17. 4. also Gal. 3. 13. 14. Christ is said to redeem us from the curse of the Law, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, see vers. 8. 9 Now than if we be partakers of the same covenant, (for otherwise ABRAHAM'S covenaunt should not be an everlasting covenant, Gen. 17. 7. seeing his posterity after the flesh is cut off for a time, Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20.) it must follow that the same must be sealed to us, and to our infants, (else it is not the same) & that by the commandment of God. For the abolishing of circumcision, & the bringing in of baptism under the gospel, doth not abrogate or disannul the commandment of sealing the covenaunt to the believing parents with their infants, which was once commanded to Abraham, but only showeth a changing of the outward sign. And therefore as the covenant belongs to the Gentiles believing, so doth the seal thereof to them & to their seed, as it did to Abraham & to his seed: The outward ceremony only changed.  Mr Smyth. 
To this Argument I make answer thus: first distinguishing the two cove●nts or testaments (for a covenant & testament is all one in the originals though ●he English words are two): one covenant was made with Abraham and his car●al seed and of that covenant was circumcision a seal: another covenant made with Abraham and his Spiritual seed, and of that covenant the holy spirit of promise is the seal: for ●he carnal covenant had a carnal seal upon the carnal seed: the Spiritual covenant had a Spiritual seal upon the Spiritual seed. For things must be made proportionable, & circumcision which was a carnal seal, could not seal up the Spiritual covenant to the Spiritual seed, for to say so, is to leap over the hedge, and to make a disproportion betwixt the type and the truth. etc.  Rich: Clifton. 
Here you say that two covenants were made with Abraham, a carnal & a spiritual, the one with Abraham and his carnal seed, the other with him and his spiritual seed: I answer, first, that God made with Abraham but one covenaunt of salvation, which is, That God would be his God, and the God of his seed. Gen. 17. 7. Luk. 1. 72. And this covenant was 
* Gen. 17. 10. 11. R● 4. 11.  sealed with circumcision, and it is the same covenant that is established by the 
† 2 Cor. 16 Heb. 8. 10 12.  blood of Christ unto all the faithful seed sealed under the Gospel 
* Mat. 19  by baptism in stead of circumcision. Other covenant that was given for salvation to Abraham and his seed, the scripture knoweth none. In this covenant is promised through jesus Christ, remission of sins, justification, life everlasting with all saving graces to all that 
† Heb. 8. ● jer. 31. 34. Act. 13. 38. 39 Heb. 9 15. 1 Cor. 1 30. Rom. 4. 11.  believe. And that this is so, the Apostle doth witness, saying, 
* Gal. 3. 17  and this I say that the covenant which was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ, the law which was 430 year after cannot disannul. Where it is to be noted, 1. that this covenant that was given to Abraham was but one: 2. that it was in respect of Christ, & therefore was that spiritual covenant 3. that it was confirmed unto him, which is more than a bare offer.  
Secondly, I deny that God ever made any carnal covenant, either with Abraham, or with the Israelites, seeing he made but two testaments all with his people, and both of them spiritual, the new Testament yo● grant to be spiritual, and that the old is so, the Apostle doth witness, coling the law (which is a part of the old Testament) both † holy and spirit● 
Rom. 7. ●. 14.  all. This law covenant or old Testament God gave to Israel and they di● * promise to keep it, and so were bound to the observation of a spiritual 
Exod. 19 ●.  and not of a carnal covenant. Besides this first Testament was not made with Abraham, seeing it can not be showed that he or the fathers did undertake the keeping thereof under penalty of the curse, as † Israel did. 
Deut. 27. ●5-26.  And as for the promise of Canaan, which Abraham believed that his seed should inherit, it was annexed unto that covenant made with him in Christ as saith the Apostle. that † Godliness hath the promise of the life present, and of 
● Tim. 4.  that which is to come: And therefore can no more be called a carnal covenant, or be said to be sealed with circumcision than the promise of the life present unto us, may be called carnal, or to be sealed with baptism And that circumcision was not given as a seal to confirm unto Abraham and his seed only the land of Canaan, (as you affirm in your answer to my second argument, Reason, 1.) but to seal unto him and to his seed the covenant of salvatiô; as may be gathered from that very place of Gen. 17. 8. 9 Where Moses having set down the sum of the covenaunt that concerns Abraham and his seed, ver. 7. in vers. 8. repeats that promise of Canaan before made unto him, Gen. 13. 15. and with all saith, I will be their God, which is that spiritual covenaunt here again purposely repeated; because he would show that the commandment of circumcision, which follows in the next verse. was given for a seal thereof, ver. 11. And that it is so to be understood, the spirit, (who knoweth the mind of the Lord) so expoundeth it; Rom. 4. 11. saying, after he received the sign of circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith, etc. by which place it is evident that circumcision was a sign of the spiritual covenant made with Abraham, and not of an other different from this, called by you a carnal covenant. The covenaunt in Christ made to Abraham, was confirmed unto him: Gal. 3. 17. and there is no mention of any other sign given unto him but of circumcision. ergo.  
Again if God gave circumcision to be a seal to Abraham and his car● seed, as you affirm, what had the Proselytes to do with this sign? ●y were they to be circumcised, seeing they were not of Abraham's carnal ●d? this sign could not seal unto them the land of Canaan, who had ● promise thereof; yet were they circumcised, Exod. 12. 48, therese they were partakers of that covenant whereof circumcision was a sign: ●t concerning Canaan it was promised only to Abraham's seed after the ●sh, and so you say, then must it needs follow that the Proselytes were partakers of the spiritual covenant, and so received circumcision as a seal thereof. And thus it is manifest that circumcision was no sign of any ●carnall covenant made to Abraham as you affirm.  
Also that to Abraham was made but one covenant, the very phrase of the holy Ghost intimates so much, for in speaking thereof the scripture useth the 
* Gen. 17. 4. 7. Gal. 17.  singular number; neither do we read of any more testaments or covenants but two, the old & the new, the former given unto Israel in the wilderness a long time after that God had made his covenant with Abraham in the Messiah to come.  
Further you say, that circumcision being a carnal seal, could not seal a spiritual covenant but the seal thereof must be the spirit. etc. I require of you what you mean by a carnal seal, if you mind that circumcision is carnal, because of the cutting of the foreskin, I grant that there was a cutting of the flesh; or if you mean carnal because it was an external sign, who will deny it. But what is this to the purpose, for the flesh of Christ was launched & pierced with nails, yet for all that it was a spiritual sacrifice; and the sacraments of the new testament, be outward and visible things, yet are they signs of spiritual things: and so circumcision though it was external & by incision of the flesh, yet was it a visible sign of an invisible grace, & of that spiritual covenaunt made with Abraham. Again, concerning your devised carnal covenant with circumcision, which you say, is a type of the spiritual covenant and spirit; I answer, that circumcision and Canaan, typed out spiritual things promised, but were not a carnal covenaunt to type out the spiritual, which was already made with Abraham: neither doth the scripture teach us that God did make a carnal covenant with him and his seed, thereby to accept them to be his people, for that could not be by any other covenant, then only by that in Christ, there being no reconciliation to God 
† 2 Cor. 5. 19  but in him. And although the spirit be the 
* Rom. 8. 15. 16. 2 Cor. 1. 22. & 5 5. Gal. 4. 6 Ephe. 1. 14.  earnest or pledge of God's promises in our hearts, yet for the further strength● 〈◊〉 and confirming of our weak faith, the Lord both before the Law to A 〈…〉 ham, and so under the Law, and likewise under the gospel hath to his 〈◊〉 venant annexed certain outward signs as seals thereof.  
And thus you having set down your distinction of two covena 〈…〉 Wish that they may be remembered and orderly applied, and the argument say y 〈…〉 will appear of no value etc.  
There can be no orderly applying of disorderly things, your distin 〈…〉 on brings all out of order, and therefore this double covenaunt being denied and not by you proved, my argument stands firm in all the parts thereof. And the mayor understood of that spiritual covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed, the Minor is truly assumed out of the Mayor, and so is no sophism.  
Furthermore the cross of Christ hath not abolished the covenant made unto Abraham but confirmed it, nor yet abrogated the sealing thereof save only changed the outward sign that thereby he might put some difference externally between the times of Christ promised to come, and his manifestation in the flesh, and accomplishment of his promise. And as * we have 
30. ●. 8. 11— ●4. Ron. 10. ●. 7. 8. ●er. 4. 4. Esay 51. 1- ●. 1 Cor. 10 ●. 4. Gal. 3 4. 16. 22. ●●k. 1. 74.  the spiritual covenant and spirit, so had the faithful under the law, and therefore it is false to say, that they had the carnal covenant and we the spiritual, typed by the carnal: for although under the Law the Lord did train up his people under many ceremonies which were types of things to come, yet did he never ordain any carnal covenant with a seal thereof as you devise. But let us see your proofs for all these particulars.  
First, that there are two Testaments made with Abraham, you allege, Gal. 4- 24. saying, Agar, that is the old Testament, and Sara that is the new, both married to Abraham. 2. There are two seeds, Ishmael of Abraham and Hagar, who typed the carnal seed, and Isaac of Abraham and▪ Sarah who typed the spiritual seed. ver. 23. 3. There are two seals circumcision a seal of the carnal covenant, upon the carnal children, Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a seal of the spiritual covenant upon the spiritual seed, 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephe. 1. 13. etc. First, for the place of the Gal. 4. whereon you build your carnal covenant, that nothing fits your purpose; for there the Apostle had to deal with the false Apostles, who urged the works of the law for justification and taught the people that unless they were circumcised Christ could not profit them, whom after he had confuted with divers reasons, he inferreth to the same 〈◊〉 gregory of Abraham and his two wives, shadowing out there 〈◊〉 ●at there can be no agreement between the law and the gospel in ●atter of justification, the law engendering bondage & requiring strict ●dience, without which is no salvation; but the gospel freeth from 
* Deut. 2● 26.  ●egall bondage, and requireth to 
† Rom. 10. 6● 11. Rom. ● 16. 17.  believe and so promiseth salvation; ●o Paul speaking to them that would be under the law, doth show them ● foolish they are, which by the gospel are set 
* Act. 13. 38.  free from the curse of ●w and legal ceremonies; do frustrate that freedom, by subjecting ●mselves again to the law, which could never make them 
† Act. 13. 39  righteous; ●d so become like unto Ishmael sons of the bond woman; whereas all ●hey that are under the gospel are free from all that bondage of the law & ●eas Isaac sons by promise of Sarah the free woman. Now this being ●he purpose or scope of the Apostle, this allegory setting down the di●●rs states of them that be under the law or old testament, & under the gospel or new testament, concerning justification and salvation, doth ●either prove that these two covenaunts or Testaments were made to Abraham, or yet that the jews were so under the law, that also they were ●ot free by faith in Christ, for if we consider the times wherein the law was given, 430 years after the promise; it will appear that the law or old testament was not given to Abraham, or yet that it did 
* Gal. 3, 1●  disannul the covenant to dispossess his seed of that estate which they obtained, by that promise made unto him. And it is to be noted, that aswell under the ●ew testament as under the old, all they are in bondage with Hagars sons that seek by the works of the law to be justified.  
2. I answer more particularly to your proofs whereof the two former are drawn from this place of the Galathians chap. 4. 24. the first, because the Apostle calls Hagar & Sarah the two testaments, vers. 24. and both ●●re married to Abraham, therefore to Abraham were made two testaments. True it is that Hagar and Sarah were types of the two testaments, the one of the old, the other of the new. But the Apostle applies them, to set out thereby the different estate of them that be under grace from such as be under the law of works: Now to Abraham was not the law given (whereof Hagar is made a type) and therefore could not have, that comnant of the law sealed up unto him by circumcision, for sure I am more covenaunts or Testaments the scripture s 〈…〉 s not of, but 〈…〉 
Heb. 8. ●3.  & new; the one abrogated by Christ his coming, the other co 〈…〉 And that the Apostle meaneth of these two testaments, it may be s 〈…〉 plainly out of the text itself, for speaking of the law, he saith thu 〈…〉 one which is Hagar of mount Sina which gendereth unto bondage, making 〈…〉tion purposely of Sinai, because that covenant of works or law was 〈…〉 in that mountain, whereof Hagar was a shadow, ver. 25. And 〈…〉 king of the other testament or covenant of grace, saith, but Jerusalem 〈…〉 is above, is free. etc. ver. 26.— 28. meaning that such as were children 〈…〉 of were free after the manner of Isaac. But here it is well to be minded if these two Testaments be not one and the same, & be said to be two in respect of the times and divers administration thereof, and then your carnal covenant cannot stand.  
Certainly the Lord made one eternal & unchangeable covenant to his Church, instructing and dispensing his benefits otherwise in the time of the Law, than now he doth under the Gospel. And in this respect, the Scripture speaking of one and the same covenant ot Testament, may well speak in regard of the dispensation thereof, as of two. And so understand by the old Testament, that spiritual doctrine of grace delivered by Moses & the Prophets to the Father's promising eternal life, openly under condition of perfect obedience of the Law, & threatening of the curse if they did not perform it; together with that intolerable burden of legal rites, & yoke of Moses polity: and covertly, under condition of repentance & faith in the Messiah to come, prefigured under types, shadows, & ceremonies: that by this means the jews as by a Schoolmaster might be lead unto Christ. And by the new Testament understand the same spiritual doctrine of grace now revealed by Christ & his Apostles, manifestly, without shadows and legal rites, promising righteousness & life to all, both jews & Gentiles that shall believe in Christ already come.  
And this being the meaning of the Apostle in speaking of two Testaments in this place, this scripture serves nothing for your carnal covenant, seeing both these Testaments are spiritual; & though some carnal things were commanded in the old testament: Yet those makes it no more a carnal covenant, than water in Baptism, & bread & wine in the Lord's supper, & the receiving of them (which all are carnal things) do make the new Testament carnal, they being given to signify unto us spiritual things as were 〈◊〉 carnal things under the law ordained to like use, unto the jews. 〈…〉 m this placeis, that there are two seeds Ishmael of Abra 〈…〉 carnal seed: and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah, 〈…〉 seed.  
〈…〉 this type th' 〈…〉 that Hagar & Ishmael did shadow 〈…〉 law with her children, 〈…〉 bondage, and Sarah & ●, jerusalem, and her children, which 〈◊〉 and sons by promise, ●nding hereby, not only Abraham's 〈◊〉 seed 〈…〉 e under bondage, 〈◊〉 through the observation of the law looked for 〈…〉tion, But all o 〈…〉 s whatsoever▪ that by pretending to observe the law, ●●pe thereby to be justified, as by applying this doctrine to the Galathians appears. But you say, Hagar and Ishmael typed the carnal seed after the flesh ● All that the Apostle saith is this, that he that was borne of the servant 〈…〉 e after the 〈◊〉, meaning thereby that he was not born● by promise 〈◊〉 mother that was free, as Isaac was, and so did typ●●●t (as afore 〈◊〉 the state and condition of them that seek justification by the works of 〈…〉 what you affirm more than this you must prove.  
3. You say, there are two seals, circumcision a seal of the carnal 〈…〉 〈◊〉 carnal children; Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a 〈◊〉 spiritual covenant upon the spiritual seed, Ephe. 1. 13.  
First, I deny that circumcision is the seal of any other covenant▪ ● 
〈◊〉. ● Gal. ● Gen. ●  of that † one covenaunt made with Abraham 〈…〉 of Christ, w 〈…〉 was confirmed unto * him and to his seed thereby; a 〈…〉 spirit calleth circumcision a 
‡ Gal. 4.  seal of the righteousness of faith.  
And lastly, because Isaac that was borne by 
* Gal. 4.  promise, was circumcised, who was partaker of the covenaunt of grace, and of the righteousness which is by faith, therefore circumcision was a sign and seal thereof.  
But you will object, that Isaac was of Abraham's carnal seed and in that respect received circumcision, as a seal of the carnal covenant, which he also had. It is true that Isaac was borne to Abraham after the common course of nature, and therefore had he thereby this prerogative to be circumcised, which no other children had but abraham's, until they or their Parents were by faith partakers of the same covenaunt made with Abraham: but it is not true that he received this sign of circumcision, as the seal of a carnal covenaunt or of the promise of Canaan only: or that it was a seal upon the carnal children of Abraham's only, seeing 〈…〉 
Exod. 12.  the believing Gentiles (as before was observed) 〈…〉 and Ishmael also was circumcised that had no right 〈…〉 And ● all such as believe & have received the gospel are sealed 〈…〉 rit of promise, is true; but as the spirit doth not only 〈…〉 promise of God in the hatte● of 〈◊〉, but externally ●● the 〈◊〉 ch the same. Heb. 8. 〈◊〉 Mat. 28. 15. so doth he both inwardly ● outwardly seal the s●me promise to them unto whom it belongs. T● * spirit and circ 〈…〉 on are seals of the same covenaunt of grace & righteousness 
● Gor. 1. ●. 21. 22. ●he. 1. 13. ●erd with ●om. 4. 11.  of faith.  
And thus may you see, that your distinction of two seals, of two several covenants, a carnal, and a spiritual, is but a devise of your own invention which will fall to the ground, when Poedobaptistry shall stand firm against 〈◊〉 strongest reasons, though you hold it to have a sandy foundation▪  
〈…〉 next place you answer to the scriptures by me alleged, to prove 〈◊〉 of my argument and first to that of Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12. you say, 〈◊〉 proveth that circumcision was a seal of the carnal covenaunt made with 〈…〉 all seed, and not a seal of the spiritual covenaunt made with the faithful, for 〈…〉 it is the seal thereof.  
〈◊〉 answered you before, that circumcision was a seal of the spiritual covenaunt made with Abraham, and have proved the same by those places of Rom. 4. 11. and Gen. 17. 7-12. although you labour to infringe the the testimony of the Apostle; saying, that it is not the scope of the place, but this, viz. that circumcision had one speciality in Abraham differing from all other, that by circumcision he was sealed up to be the father of all the faithful, as concerning the matter of their justification, etc.  
The words of the Apostle are so plain, as you cannot shift them off, for Paul proving that Abraham was justified by faith, and that faith was imputed unto him for righteousness when he was uncircumcised, saith, after he received the sign of circumcision as the seal of the righteousness of faith which he had when he was uncircumcised, Ram. 4. 9 10. 11. Doth not the Apostle plainly affirm that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith? which 
●● Cor. 1. 30. Act. 13. 39 2 Cor. 5. 21.  righteousness, what is it else, but the matter of God's spiritual covenaunt made to Abraham? for Christ the substance of this covenaunt, is this righteousness by which Abraham and all the faithful ‡ are justified; And you confess that by circumcision Abraham was sealed up to be the father of the faithful 〈…〉ning the matter of their justification. Now if it did seal to Abraham the ●uall covenaunt, then is circumcision a seal of the covenannt of salva●, and not of a carnal covenaunt, as you affirm. And if circumcisi● a 〈◊〉, Abraham of this heavenly promise, then is it so to all his 〈…〉 God put no difference in commanding him and his seed to ●cumcised, as to say to Abraham▪ that this sacrament, should seal vn●●im the covenaunt of grace, and to his seed a carnal covenaunt, but ●d thus to Abraham, 
† Gen. 17. 9 10.  thou also shalt keep my co 〈…〉 thou and thy seed af● thee in their generations. But say you, he was sealed up to●● the father of the faith●l, that as he was justified by faith, so should they be, and th● 〈…〉 lties had circumcision in Abraham differing from all other.  
That Abraham had this prerogative above others to be ●●e father of the faithful, is not denied, but to affirm that circumcision ●●s not a seal of the spiritual covenant, is false: and you answer not the Apostle, but shift it off with saying, this specialty had circumcision in Abrahan differing frō●ther, which is no conscionable dealing, seeing you cannot but 〈◊〉, that Paul having affirmed that Abraham's faith was imputed to him 〈…〉 ●ousnes when he was uncircumcised, doth prevent this objection, 〈…〉 Abraham was justified being uncircumcised, to what end was he than cir 〈…〉 cised? to which the Apostle answers, that his circumcision was not i● vain, but was given of God, and by him received as a seal of the righ●●ousnes of his faith, so setting down the use of circumcision, not limiting the same as a specialty to Abraham's fatherhood, but as the proper end or use of the sacrament itself belonging to all others that were circumcised, as well as to him.  
The next scripture is Act. 2. 39 whereto you answer, that the promise is 
Act. 2. 3  offered to the impenitent jews, and to their posterity, and to the Gentiles a far off, and that was exhibited only to so many as yielded obedience to the faith, charging me with adding to the text, etc.  
First, I confess the word (made) is not in that place, but added by the translator to make the sense more plain, the text may thus be read, for ●● you is the promise, and to your children, yet the word (made) added in the translation, is no adding to the sense, as may be proved, Gen. 17. 2. 7. where in the second verse, the Lord useth this word, (give) saying, & I will give my covenaunt between me and thee, and in the 7. verse, I will make or establish my covenaunt, the 〈◊〉 also in vers. 21. in the giving of the covenaunt. This word (〈◊〉) word equivalent unto it, is used in Deut. 29. 14. I will make or cut o● covenaunt with you, using a borrowed speech which signifies 〈◊〉 〈…〉 naunt, because in old times covenants were * confirmed by 〈◊〉 
Gen. 15. ●. jer. 34.  of living beasts and fowls. The same word is likewise in Gen. 15. ●●. ●. so Act. 13. 32. the words are, that touching the promise made to the fathers ● which place the word (made) is expressed; so is it in Act. 26. 6. & Ac● 25. & Gal. 3. 17. And therefore though the Apostle leave it out in rehearsing the covena 〈…〉 yet finding it in the original grant, and in other places, there is no adding to the word, if we express the same in our own tongue. All ●hich frees me from your slander, of adding to the text. But if the reader 〈◊〉 mind your writing, this imputation of adding will more justly be ●●turned upon your own head, for you say, the promise is offered to the impenitent jews. I desire it may be showed where this word offered, is in the text, and why you call those jews impenitent, which the holy Ghost wit 〈…〉 to be penitent.  
Secondly, you not being able to answer this place of the Acts, post it ●ver with a distinction of offering and exhibiting, thereby to deceive the sim●le in putting the thing promised, (which is offered to many by the pressing of the Gospel, but exhibited to the believers) for the covenaunt or 
Gen. 17. 7 ●eut. 29. ●— 15. Gen. 17. 1.  promise itself, which was once † made to Abraham and his seed; now Peter's reason was to persuade them to repentance and baptism, because the Lord had made his promise to them and to their children: and they likewise had entered covenant with him to ‡ walk in his ways, therefore they should amend and be baptized, & the Lord would pardon their transgressions. And note that salvation is offered by the preaching of 〈◊〉 Christ, continually to them that are within the covenaunt, as well as to others.  
But let me ask you whether that covenaunt which God made to Abraham was but only offered, or that Abraham received it also, & so God both entered covenaunt with him and he with God? is it not apparent that Abraham received the covenant, in that he believed, and was circumcised? 
Rom. 4. 3. ●1.  and did he not receive it as well for his * seed, as for himself & believed that God would be the God of his seed? how can you say then, it was but an offer only. And if it was not made with the Israelites, how ●l they be blamed for the 
* Hos. 2. 2● & 4. 1. 3. 2 Chro 24. 18. 19 & 30. 6-●  breach thereof? they might have been re●ed for refusing to have received God's covenant being offered unto ● but not for their adultery, never being married unto the Lord. Israel ●he 
* Hos. 2. ●  Lords wife, & he her husband, could this be by an offer, and not ●ring the contract? read Luke, 1. 68- 74. but if it please you to read ●. 29. 10-15. where the covenant was renewed with Israel, that the ●, women, and children and stranger with them, entered into the cove●t and oath of the Lord, which he made with them; it will appear that ●is was more than a bare offer, for hereby God did establish them a people for himself.  
But, say you, it was exhibited only to so many as yielded obedience to the faith. I answer, these jews whom you call impenitent, many of them did 
‡ Act. 2. 4●  repent and had received the covenant in Abraham their father, were circumcised and had right to the 
* Rom. 9 4●  promises, were to be esteemed 
† Act. 3. 25.  children of the covenant, until by 
‡ Act. 13. 45. 46. & 18. 6. Rom. 11. 2  infidelity and impenitency they were cut off. And herein you are deceived, that because many of the jews through infidelity fell away, that therefore the covenant was not made with them, it is true, that it did not profit the 
† Heb. 4. ●  unbelievers, & that was their own fault (no more doth it now profit hypocrites in the Church,) yet was it made with them, & they externally received it, in that they did partake of the signs thereof, and professed to be Abraham's sons, Joh. 8. 33. The Lord's supper offered, & externally received of the unworthy, profits them not, yet they partaking but in the outward signs are held 
* 1 Cor. 1● 27.  guilty of the body and blood of Christ.  
Further you say, Whereas you seeming to assume that the covenaunt was made to Abraham and his infants, it is therefore made to us and our infants, I deny that ever the covenaunt spiritual was made that is conferred to all Abraham's Infants according to the flesh, etc.  
First, you deny that the spiritual covenaunt was made, that is conferred to all Abraham's infants. But I ask you whether was it given to any of them or no? because you say, it was not conferred to all, if to none, I pray you tell me how any of them, so dying infants were saved? so also you say, neither is it conferred to all our infants, can you show me which of our infants are except, if it be not conferred unto all. That it was conferred or made on the Lord's behalf, cannot be denied: but that every one to whom it is conefrred doth effectually receive it, who doth so affirm? you run here to the secret counsel of God, where in, all are not † 〈◊〉 
●om: 9 7 ●. 8 44.  because they are the seed of Abraham, the which is not denied, but 〈◊〉 the posterity of Abraham after the flesh, many were not of the * elect 
●om: 11.  but this is not to the purpose, for we do not hold that every one of A●hams natural seed is saved, nor all the posterity of believing parent in the election: but this we believe, that God of his free grace gave his 〈…〉 venant to Abraham and to his seed, and he by faith received the same himself and his seed indefinitely, as we also do believe that God will ● our God, and the God of our seed, because he hath so promised, and therefore do we in assurance hereof cause our Infants to be baptized according to the * commandment of Christ: if any of them coming to years do manifest 
Mat: 28.  by their unbelief, that they are reprobate, then are we to take notice that they ‡ were not of us, but till then we are to account them as children 
Io: 2. 19  of the Covenant, as well as we do those that being hypocrites, do outwardly 
Act. 8. 13.  profess the faith & so are baptized, as Simon Magus.  
Secondly, you say, The spiritual covenant was offerred to all Abraham's seed under the carnal etc.  
How Gods covenant was given to Abraham and his seed, & not barely offerred, I have showed before, so also have I answered to your carnal covenant and confess, that the Lord under types & figures did teach and shadow forth unto Israel divers particulars of the Messiah as of his † sacrificing, 
Heb. 8. 5. & 9 8. 9 ●c. & 10. ● etc. Col. ● 17. Heb. ●— 9 & ● chap. ● Cor. 10. 1.— 6.  death, resurrection, priesthood and such like, and of good things to come to his Church under the Gopell, and of the Kingdom of heaven, but that there was a carnal covenant or Testament made with Abraham over & besides the covenant of grace, sealed unto him and his carnal seed by circumcision all your learning can never prove it.  
You conclude That as it was offered to Abraham's seed, so to ours. This I hope then if it be proved that the spiritual covenant was not only offerred, but given to Abraham's carnal seed (I mean the Israelites) that the same covenant is given to our children, unless the grace of God be lessened under the gospel. to prove the former, viz: that the spiritual covenant was given to the Israelites besides that which hath been formerly observed I will add some sew reasons more to confirm the same.  
1. Deu: 29. 10-15. Moses speaking unto all Israel, saith, ye stand ●y every one of you before the Lord your God, your heads of your tribes, your ● and your officers,▪ all the men of Israel, your children, your wives etc. that shouldst pass into the covenaunt of the Lord thy God, and into his oath ● he maketh with thee this day, etc. neither make I this covenaunt with you ● but with him that standeth here with us this day, as with him that is not here ● us this day, etc. Which covenaunt is the 
† Deut. 2 13. confy with Gen 17. 1. 2. 7 19 & 2● 3.  same that was made to ●raham, and renewed both on God's behalf and the peoples. Now that avenant that God confirmed to Abraham, with an oath is the covenant ● grace, as Luke, 1. 72. 75. conferred with Gen. 22. 16. Heb. 6. 13. 14. And his covenaunt that was made to Abraham, is the very same that Isra●l renewed with the Lord, for themselves and their posterity. Deut. 19 13. ●4. 15. which was not barely offered, but confirmed unto Abraham & his ●ed by the Lord's oath. Yea in verse 10. 12. it is said, ye stand this day to pass ●r● the covenant of the Lord, and into his oath which he maketh with thee this day, for ● establish thee this day, a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God as ●e hath said unto thee, and hath sworn unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Ia●ob. And this to be their God, & they to be his people, & their posterity, was no carnal covenaunt, but the very 
‡ 2 Cor. 6. 16.  same that is made with us under the Gospel.  
2. That the Lord made with Israel his spiritual covenaunt, may also be proved, Deut. 10. 16. where Moses exhorts them to circumcise the foreskin of their heart, and by all these exhortations of the Prophets, to repentance. jer. 3. 14. & 4. 1. 4. & 7. 3. Hosea 10. 12. and 14. 1-7. joel 2. 12. 13. Amos 5. 4. 6. Zepha. 2. 1. 2. (which are the conditions of that spiritual covenant that the Lord requires on our part therein) & the promises of pardon annexed thereunto. (which is the other part of the covenant on God's behalf.) Now the covenaunt of the law admits of no repentance, nor promiseth any pardon, only the covenaunt of grace, admits thereof. If therefore they had not had the spiritual covenaunt given unto them, whereupon could the Prophets have grounded their exhortations, or with such reasons have persuaded them to repentance? This was the ground of Peter's exhortation of the jews to amendment of life, as before is observed out of Act. 2. 38. 39  
And by the Lords requiring of repentance at the hands of the Is 〈…〉 it is most clear, that God required then the same thing, that now 〈◊〉 † gospel is required of us: Ergo they were interessed in the same cove 〈…〉 
Mar. 1. ● 15.  that we have: And therefore not only the outward observation of ce 〈…〉 nies was required of the jews, by their covenant, but also the obs 〈…〉 of the conditions of the covenant of grace, as to walk before God an● be upright: Gen: 17. 1. to believe and repent: And it is a notable ere 〈…〉 hold the contrary.  
3. Israel were held to be the people of God, and the Lord to be their God, and so God did ‡ account of them. Now I would know if they could 
●r. 23. 2. ●ay 5. 7. micah. 2. 8. ● Hos. 11. ●. Deut. ●. 8. Gen. ●. 8. Ehe. 2. ●. ●. Cor. 6. ●. 17. A● c. 18. 4.  be said to be his people, and not to be within his covenant of grace; doth God accept of any, by a carnal covenant to be his people, and not in Christ? do not both jews & Gentiles become God's people through Christ? and all that are not within his covenant, are said to be * far of and without God. But the offering only of the Gospel or covenant, makes not a people to be God's people, for the Gospel may be preached to them; that are without, but then are they said to be God's people, when they embrace his covenant and not before, and such as do receive it are commanded † to separate themselves from the profane, which will not have the Lord to be their God: which separation, argues a difference between a people to whom the promises are offered, and such as have received them for that Gospel that converted some in a false Church, was offerred to more yet is it received only of the faithful, in which respect they are said to be the people and Church of God. This resteth then for you to show that God entituleth any to be his people, which have not either themselves or 
●om. 9 4. ●. 2. 39 ●eut. 29.  their forefathers received the covenant of grace. And as Israel was called the people of God, because the ‡ covenant belonged unto them, and they had † passed into that, & received the seal thereof wherehy they testified themselves and were acknowledged to be God's people and sheep of his pasture: so are we become the people and Church of God, not because 
●. Rom. 11. ●6.  the gospel is preached unto us, but because we have received the promise of God, and entered covenant with him for ourselves and also for our children, for if the ‡ first fruits be holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root be holy, so are the branches.  
4. The Apostle saith, that the branches; uz. the jews were 
* Rom. 11. ●7. 20.  broken of from the root and fatness of the olive through unbelief meaning by the root, Abraham isaac and jacob their forefathers who for themselves and their seed 〈◊〉 received the covenant: Now it must necessarily follow upon the Apo 〈…〉 words, that they were before, of the olive, or else could they not be 〈…〉 d to be broken of: And this breaking of, was not a ceasing to be their 〈…〉 turall seed, (for so continue they still) but they were broken of from the 〈…〉 enant of grace made to Abraham and his seed, as it is apparent by this, 〈◊〉 they were broken of through unbelief, which hath relation to that co●enant, and not to the covenant of works. Yea and they are said to be 
* Rom. ● 19 20.  broken of from that, whereunto we are graffed by faith, and into which they may also be 
† vers. 23.  graffed in again, if they continue not in unbelief. Now we are graffed into no other covenant but that of grace: And as for the jews they cannot again be graffed into such a carnal covenant as you imagine, seeing by your own doctrine it is disannulled: And if they be to be graffed into an other covenant and not the same that they were in before, how can it be called a graffing in again? for this phrase importeth a covenant whereof they had been formerly partakers.  
But it will be objected, that they which are once in Christ and holy, can not be broken of, and therefore such of the jews as fallen away cannot be said to be holy and of the spiritual covenant.  
I Answer first, it is true that they that are graffed in Christ, and personally holy 
“ Joh. 10. ● 27. 28.  cannot be broken of: secondly, the Apostle speaking of holiness and saying if the root be holy so are the branches, meaneth not of any personal holiness, but of that right of the covenant whereby they became God's people, which he calleth holiness that descends from Abraham to all his seed, as the sap or fatness of the olive doth from the root ascend to all the branches; And this holiness, or right to the spiritual covenant had all the jews, in regard whereof they were separate from all other nations, and called a holy nation. And in this respect are the children of those parents (whereof the one of them believeth) called holy. 1. Cor: 7. 14. not that personal holiness descendeth from the parent to the child (for that cannot pass from one to an other) but because through the faith of the father believing that the promise of salvation is made to him and his seed, the children have now title and right to the same covenant by the free and large promise of the grace of God, and so many as are elected are saved (though dying in their infancy,) by the same covenant.  
5. The Apostle affirmeth Act. 15. 11. that both the fathers under the law, as well as we that are under the gospel, are under the same j 〈…〉ing and sanctifying grace of Christ, saying, we believe through the grace o● Lord Jesus Christ to be saved as they, meaning their fathers, vers. 10. where 〈…〉 on I conclude, that their father's being under the same grace, were und● the same covenant with us, although this grace was not so fully revealed and fulfilled as it is now * to us; for there is no partitipation of the gra● 
Jo. 7. 39  of justification and regeneration, but in this spiritual covenant; therefore to them was given this spiritual covenaunt, and they did receive it as well as we, though amongst them some particular persons did by their personal unbelief, cut themselves of from the grace of God, as now some do with us, which neither then, nor now, can make the covenant given to our 
Exod. 20. Ps. 89. 28 ●. Gen. 3. 15 ● 4. 4. 26. ● 6. 5. & ●eb. 11. 4. etc. Heb. 11. ●. ● Heb. 11. ●. 14. 15. ●.  forefathers, to be † void to their posterity.  
6. The spiritual covenant that was given to Abraham and his seed, was before given to “ Adam, and the fathers to the time of Abraham; & they received it by faith, (for there is but one covenant of salvation both before & after Christ, & one manner of receiving it, which is by faith:) & Abraham to whom was promised the land of Canaan, did notwithstanding look for a * city having a foundation whose builder and maker is God. And of these fathers before Abraham his time, doth the Apostle witness that they all died in faith, ‘ * saw the promises (that is the things promised) a far off, (though they received them not as then fulfilled,) and believed and received thankfully and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth, for they that say such things declare plainly that thoy seek a country, that is an heavenly. And in the first epistle to the Corinth's chap. 10. 1. etc. the Apostle speaking of the fathers which were of Abraham's seed, saith, I would not have you ignorant, that all our fathers were under the cloud, were all baptised unto Moses, did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drunk of the spiritual rock that followed, & the rock was Christ. By which scriptures it appears that the spiritual covenant was given unto them, & that they received it by faith. 
Heb. 11. ●. Mat. 17. ●. 2 Cor. ●. 19 Rev. 1 ● & 8. 3. Heb. 13. 15 ● 1 Tim. 2. ●. Heb. 13. ● Eph. 2. ●.   
7. If the fathers under the law had not been within the covenant of grace, all their worship offered unto God could not have been acceptable, seeing out of Christ, * God is not pleased with any person, or with any worship; therefore is he said to be the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, & the only “ Mediator between God and man, by whom we have access unto the Father, and † through whom all our sacrifices and worship are pleasing unto God.  
Lastly, it must needs be that the jews had the covenant of grace, seeing the Apostle saith † ‘ that the Gentiles shallbe coinheritors (meaning with the jews) ● of the same body, and partakrrs of the promises in Christ by the Gospel: for if the ●wes had not formerly been a body & inheritors of the promises in Christ, ●ow could the Gentiles be said to be coinheritors with them and of the ●ame body, see also Ephes. 2. 12. 13. 14. Add hereunto that the jews were called the 
* Mat. 8▪ 12.  children of the kingdom, and of of the 
“ Act. 3. 25.  covenant, and unto whom the 
† Act. ● 32.  promise was made.  
And now it being proved that this spiritual covenant appertained to the Israelites, and the conditions thereof required at their hands, I hope you will grant as much to the faithful and their seed under the Gospel, or else show us where and when the hand of God's grace was shortened, but that I am sure you cannot prove God to be less bountiful now, than he was to the jews: and therefore as the childs of Abraham Isaac and jacob were holy and had right to the covenant and were sealed with circumcision: so are the children now that descends from believing parents 
* 1 Cor. 7. 14.  holy, and have right to the covenant 
“ Mat. 19▪ 14.  and kingdom of God, and consequently to baptism the seal thereof.  
But you say, Infants wanting actual faith, cannot truly be said the children of Abraham.  
I answer, that actual faith is required of such of Abraham's children, as 
Here no● that actual faith in al● this treatise is put for t● actual us● faith.  are grown to years. And therefore you must prove that infants wanting actual faith cannot be the children of Abraham, and then must you prove that they are not Christ's, for if they be Christ's they are Abraham's seed Gal. 3. 29.  
But are that they are, in secret to the Lord; whatsoever they are.  
Christ hath said plainly, 
“ Mar. ● 14.  that of such is the Kingdom of God. And the promise is 
* Act. 2. 3.  made to the believers and their seed. And you leave them in secret to the Lord, thus shutting your eyes against the clear light of the truth.  
The Scriptures following, (viz: Gal. 3. 13. 4. 8. 9 compared with Gen. 17. 7. Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. which serve most plainly to prove that the covenant that we have is the same that was made to Abraham,) you leave unanswered.  
Next follow your reasons against poedobaptistrie, the first whereof is this. As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful, so must it be with the children of Abraham, Rom. 4. 11. But Abraham first believed actually, and being sealed with the spirit of promise, afterward received the sign of circumcision: Ergo the children of Abraham, the believing Gentiles must first believe actually and be sealed with the spirit of promise, and then receive the baptism of water.  
This Argument which you allege against Paedobaptistrie the very 〈◊〉 serves to confirm it, for thus we reason for it observing your terms.  
As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful, so must it be with th● children of Abraham.  
But Abraham first believed and being sealed with the spirit of promise, afterward received the sign of circumcision, he and his children.  
Ergo, the children of Abraham the believing Gentiles must first beleeve● and be sealed with the spirit of promise, and then receive baptism of water, they and their children.  
Here let the reader consider, if you by this your own Argument have not yielded the cause; for this is that which we stand for, viz: that, As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with his children the believing Gentiles. Now Abraham believed that God would be his God and the God of his seed. Gen. 17. 7. received circumcision the † seal thereof, he himself, and all his males, yea Isaac of eight days old. 
●om. 4. 3 ● Gen. 17. ●— 14. ●— 27. ● 21. 4.  Ergo the children of Abraham the believing Gentiles must first believe, and then receive the seal thereof which is Baptism, themselves and their children. But if your meaning be this, that as Abraham believed first & after was circumcised; so every one of Abraham's seed must first actually believe and then be baptized, than I must entreat you to show me when and where this difference was put between the seed of Abraham which descended from him by the course of nature, & his seed that are of the Gentiles, that the former being infants, might notwithstanding first receive the seal before they did actually believe: And that the other, viz: the infants of the Gentiles must first believe and after receive the sign: surely before the coming of Christ the Lord put no such difference, but that such of the Gentiles as did turn to the faith, “ their infants were circumcised, as well as 
exod. 12.  the infants of the jews. After Christ's coming the Apostle witnesseth, that there is no difference between the Gentiles and the jews, for he saith 
Ephe. 3. 6  * the Gentiles are coinheritors also (meaning with the jews) and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel. And therefore the Apostle did not doubt to “ baptize the households with the believing parents. 
Act. 16. ●. 33. Act. 10. ●.  I will answer you therefore with the words of the Angel unto Peter, * The things that God hath cleansed pollute thou not. God hath purified the Gentiles, and our seed in accepting us into the same covenant with Abraham, therefore it is an injury offered, to pollute, that is, to reject from the covenant, our children, whom the Lord hath received. Your second ●s this.  
As in the old testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised and so admit●d into the Church of the old testament: so in the new testament, the spiritual children ●ust be spiritually circumcised, and then be admitted by baptism into the Church ●f the new testament. But the first was signified by the type, Ergo the second is ●rified in the truth.  
First, If this Argument should hold proportion, than it would follow, that as circumcision was a seal of the covenant, so should baptism be a ●eale likewise, for it is brought in here to answer circumcision, as the door into the Church: But you deny 
* Chara● pag. 9  Baptism to be a seal of the covenant.  
2. I answer that the carnal children of the Israelites were not admitted to be members of the Church of the old testament, by circumcision: for they were borne in the Church and so were of it before the eight day, & 
“ Gen. 17  the covenant appertained unto them, and therefore were they circumcised, for none might be circumcised to whom the covenant did not belong.  
Also to the Majors consequent, I answer, that they which enter into the Lord's covenant be they believers or their Infants, we are to hold them 
† 1 Cor. 7. 14. Luk ● 15. jer. 1. ●  spiritually circumcised, and therefore to be partakers of baptism.  
Concerning your assumption, as 
* Mat. 3. 8. Act. ● 12. 37.  repentance and profession of faith is required of them that are to be adjoined to the Church of the new Testament: so was it of 
“ Gen. 17 ● Esra. 6. ●  Abraham, and of them that were Gentiles, and to be adjoined to the Church, of the old Testament, And therefore this manner of admitting members into the Church being moral under the law so continueth to be under the Gospel. And the † 
“ Deut. 1● 4. ●. 6. Ier ● Deut. 30. 6.  Circumcision of the heart was commanded and promised then to the Israelites and their seed as well as now it is to us, and not only to them that adjoined to the Church but continually to all the members of the same. And therefore it is no● true that theirs was the type only and ours the truth: seeing the things signified by Circumcision were required of the circumcised; as the thing signified by baptism is also required of us; and a like entrance into the Church under both Testaments.  
The third is this; As in the old Testament carnal infants were carnally begotten and borne by the mortal seed of generation by their carnal parents, and then ●ere carnally circumcised, & received into the carnal covenant: so in the new Testament spiritual Infants new borne babes in Christ must be spiritually begotten and 〈◊〉 the immortal seed of regeneration by spiritual parents, and then being spirit 〈…〉 circumcised, they shall by baptism with water be received into the new Testament▪ But the first was signified by type, Ergo the second was verified in the truth.  
This reason is a like to the former and hath answer already. This I add further that circumcision though it was a cutting of the foreskin of the flesh, yet was it an holy action † sealing unto the believers and their 
Rom. 4. 11.  seed, the righteousness of faith.  
2 I deny that the seed of Abraham after the flesh was by circumcision received into a carnal covenant; the covenant is spiritual unto which 
Gen. 17. 7 ● Act. 7. 8. ●. 4. 11.  they were sealed * by circumcision, as before I have proved: for had they been received into a carnal covenant; then should the Church of the old Testament be also carnal: for according to the nature of the covenant so must the Church be; and GOD must be a carnal GOD, and delighted with carnal things, contrary to Psal. 50. 8. 13. Esay. 1. 13. 14. But the Lord required of his people the Israelites more than outward or carnal service and that which stood in ceremonies types and shadows; 
Lev. 19 2  even † holiness, the circumcision of the heart, * repentance, 
“ Deut. 10.  the service of the heart and soul. And that the Lord did principally require 
●6. Jer. 4. 4. ● Hos. 14. 2 ●el 2. 12. ●3. Ps. 4. 4 ● Deut. 10. ●. 6. 4. 5. ●sa. 1. 11▪ ● & 58. 2 ●4. 5. Ps. ●0. 8.— 13.  spiritual worship of them, appears by his † rejection of their ceremonial worship when it was offerred up without the spiritual, and by exhorting to the spiritual; as Psal. 50. 14. 15. to offer praise and to call upon him. and Psal. 4. 5. to offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and in Hoseah. 14. 2. to pray for pardon, and to render up the calves of their lips, And consequently faith in Christ; without 
* Heb. 11. 6  which, all their worship was unsavoury to God. the Psal. describeth the true members of the Church and dwellers in the Lord's 
† Ps. 15. 1. ●2. 3. etc. & Ps. 24. 3. 4. ●.  Tabernacle not by an outward observation of legal ceremonies, but of their spiritual obedience. The Lord saith 
“ Prov. 23 ●. ● Esa. 29. ●3.  my son give me thy heart, and reproveth † hypocrisy. By all which testimonies it is manifest, that the members of the old Church were received into a further covenant with the Lord, then into a bare carnal covenant which hath carnal conditions only, as before is proved.  
The fourth is this, If the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised then the carnal infants in the new Testament must not be baptized, because that as circumcision is abolished which was the sing or seal; so the infant is abolished which is the subject of the sign or seal. And a proportionable infant introduced, which is one regenerate by the spirit and by the word: But the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised: Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the new Testament to be baptized.  
The consequent of the major will not follow, the reason proves it not: For although circumcision be abolished in that there was somewhat 〈◊〉 ●t was typical, as the circumcising of the males only, whereby they were directed unto Christ by whom our corrupt nature is cleansed: yet was ●t not abolished as it was a seal of the covenant, but the outward ceremony only changed: no more is the carnal infant of the believing parents abolished or made uncaple of the seal of God's covenant: for the children of Christians 
† Gal. 3. 29  are Abraham's seed, I say, not in respect of the flesh, but by grace of the covenant comprehending the whole seed of the faithful; and therefore have right as well to the sign of the covenant as had the carnal seed of Abraham.  
touching your proportionable infant (as you term him) it is to be observed that in the old Church it was required of all that were to be adjoined thereunto that they should 
* Exod. 12 48. Ezr. 6 21.  separate from the filthiness of the heathen to seek the Lord as now it is under the gospel. And therefore it will not follow that circumcision was a type only of the time to come? the fift is this.  
As in the old Testament when the male appeared the eight day their was a painful circumcising and mortifying of the foreskin when the party was received into the covenant actually: so in the new testament when the Lord jesus Christ (typed by the male) appointeth that when there is a painful circumcising & mortifying of the superfluous fore ●kin of the heart, the party so qualified should be received into the new testament actually: But the first was signified by the type: Ergo, the second is verified in the truth.  
First, the covenant to the infants of the jews was actually sealed by circumcision, but this cannot properly be said a receiving into the covenant, (wherein they were before comprehended with their fathers,) but a confirming thereof to the parties circumcised. And this appeareth to be so by the Lords threatening to 
* Gen. 1● 14.  cut of from his people the uncircumcised male-child. Can he be cut of that was not of his people, or for the refusing circumcision to be be said to have broken the Lords covenant?  
2. Your simile holds not proportion, for you say, the party circumcised was by circumcision actually received into the covenant, then by your reason (if you will make it proportionable) the parties that are to be received into the new Testament, must be received therein by the mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of his heart; or else you must show some ceremony following circumcision, by which the jewish children were received into the covenant that must type out baptism by which, say you, the party so qualified should be received into the new Testament actually, or else show a reason why this ceremony of baptism is added to the truth (as you expound it) and nothing added to the type to shadow out baptism? this is not proportioable that there must be a ceremony added to the truth in receving in of members, into the Church now since the coming of Christ, and not any to the type in receiving in of members into the Church before his coming.  
Lastly if you will keep proportion, you must compare together circumcision and baptism, both which do lead to the circumcision of the heart, & are the seals of one and the same covenant, the one appointed for the old Church before Christ, the other for the Church under the Gospel, & then will your Argument fall out against yourself. And thus I have showed both the weakness of your answer, & of your reasons grounded thereupon.   

Argument. II.  
Col. 2. 11. 12. If circumcision belonged to faithful Abraham and his seed, yea to such as were but infants, then doth baptism also appertain to all believers and to their seed being infants. But the first is true, Gen. 17. 10. Ergo the second.  
The consequent will follow, seeing baptism cometh in place of circumcision sealing up unto us and to our seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham and to his seed, Col. 2. 11. 12. and that in as large and ample manner (if not more ample) then to the Israelites, for of them only were the males circumcised, but by baptism, are both males and females sealed. And this must follow necessarily, or else the covenant by the coming of jesus Christ should be more restrained, than it was under the law, who came to ratify and confirm it wholly, as the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him, yea and Amen, etc. For God gave it with the seal thereof, to Abraham and his infants: and if Christ should give it unto us only and not to our infants, this were to lessen and infringe the covenant, and not to confirm all, but to take away part of that which God before had given.  Mr Smyth. 
I answer that this argument is built upon the same false ground with the former a mere mistaking of the covenant, and seal, and seed: and there is manifest violence committed upon the scripture by perverting and wresting it to false consequents: first therefore I deny the consequence, and I give reasons of my denial. etc.  
The former Argument is proved to stand upon a true ground and so ●all it be manifested that there is no mistaking, either of the covenant, seal or seed in this reason, nor yet any violence offered to this scripture, by wresting it to false consequences as you affirm. The consequence you deny, but desprove it not, to your reasons I will answer particularly, which in number are three.  
Your first reason because, that circumcision did not appertain to Abraham & his infants as a seal of the everlasting covenant but of the external temporary covenant of Canaan and of obedience to the law of Moses. etc. I have already proved the contrary, both out of Gen: 17. 7. 9 where it is added as a sign unto that everlasting covenant, and also out of Rom. 4. 11. where it is called the seal of the righteousness of faith. Furthermore, circumcision did signify the 
† Deut. ● 16. jer. ● Act. 7. 5●  inward circumcision of the heart; which was not required of them in respect of the promise of Canaan, (the same being required under the Gospel,) nor yet of the law, (for it admits of no repentance,) but as a condition of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham and his seed in Christ: also the proselytes & Ishmael were circumcised, that had no promise of Canaan, nor right to one foot of inheritance in it, for 
* Ios. 14. ● 16. 17. 18▪ 19 21. c.  Canaan was divided by lot to the 12. Tribes, and in every tribe to the several families: and therefore their circumcision did either seal unto them the spiritual covenant, or none at all, as before is observed.  
Again, if by the male circumcised; Christ was typed, as you have affirmed before in your fift reason in your answer to my former Argument, than circumcision was a sign of the spiritual covenant: (For Christ is that which was promised). And if the infant circumcised was a type of him, it must needs follow that circumcision was asigne of that covenant whereof the child circumcised was the subject, but the infant in becoming a type of Christ, became in this respect, a subject of the spiritual covenant, and therefore his circumcision a seal thereof, for the type and truth must have relation to the same thing or covenant.  
Lastly, Christ was a Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises unto the fathers. Rom. 15. 8. Also I deny that circumcision was first given as a seal of obedience to the law of Moses, seeing the law was not given when circumcision was ordained, but 
* Gal. 3. 1●  430. years after: the thing to be sealed is to go before the seal, or else it is preposterous, and the seal without fruit. Neither was it given to be a seal of a carnal promise: in deed Abraham receiving the covenant of grace, God together with it promised unto him and his seed the Land of Canaan: but he never appointed circumcision to be the seal thereof; else when Israel possessed that land, circumcision should have ceased, as all Sacraments shall do, when the promises, whereof they be seals, shallbe fully accomplished: and circumcision should have been of no force to them that had no right to Canaan, which yet were circumcised.  
Your second reason, because the believers do not occupy Abraham's place in the covenant of the new Testament, etc.  
I answer, they do thus occupy the place of Abraham, that as he did, so 
Act. 2. 39  do * they receive the covenant to them, and their children, who through the free promise of God received by the faith of the parents, have entrance into the covenant together with them: and in this regard parents are, & so may be called “ fathers of their children, being the means whereby they 
Act. 2. 39  come to this prerogative, And this is not to supply that particular of Abraham's fatherhood, which was extraordinary.  
Your third reason is, because the infants of the faithful do not possess the place of the true children of Abraham, but possess the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh, etc.  
First, how the infants of the faithful are the children of Abraham, I have showed, & here, deny that the children of Abraham according to the flesh only as you mean, were types of the infants of the faithful; seeing the children of the Proselytes were the children of the faithful: and they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, yea some infants circumcised, should be types, (as the carnal seed of Abraham) and other infants circumcised as well as they, (to wit) the children of the Proselytes) should be no types: for you say the infants of the faithful do possess the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh. And thus your own reason agrees not with itself, nor you with the truth.  
Secondly, I ask you if the children of Abraham according to the flesh were not the children of the faithful? Paul saith, * that all our fathers were under the cloud, were all baptized unto Moses and did all eat the same spiritual meat, 
1 Cor. 10. ● 5.  & drank the same spiritual drink etc. And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, cap. 11. the faith of the fathers is commended, and after the enumeration of many particulars, the Apostle saith, all these through faith obtained good report. Which scriptures do prove that the infant's circumcised were the children of the faithful, & if infants of the faithful, then were they types of themselves.  
3. These that you call typical children of Abraham, as Isaac, jacob, etc. were the true children of Abraham, Heb. 11. 9 all the posterity of jacob were children of Abraham after the flesh, & 
* Rom. ● 16. 17. 19▪ 20. 23. ● conferred w● Gen. 17. ● 9 13. Jo● 44.  sons of the promise of life, so to be reputed, as the like we are to esteem of all the children of belee●ers.  
But say you, If you will make true consequents, you must reason from the type to the truth, and not from the type to the type, neither must you confound the covenants and seals as you do, etc.  
And I answer you, neither must you devise other covenants and seals then the Lord hath appointed. But as for my confounding of the covenants and seals, that is your bare affirmation, and what you have said for establishing of your two covenants or Testaments made to Abraham, & for your carnal and spiritual infants, is answered before.  
Next you proceed to examine the reasons of the consequence of my argument, and of the scriptures produced for the confirmation thereof. And first you deny baptism to come in place of circumcision as a seal of the same promises to us and our seed, than you undertake to prove the contrary, saying, That the circumcision of the heart succeed in the place of circumcising the flesh, Rom. 2. 29. and circumcision made without hands, cometh in place of circumcision made with hands, Collos. 2. 11. compared with Ephe. 2. 11.  
By this reasoning you deny the fathers before Christ to be circumcised in heart, and yet to them as well as unto us was commanded and promised the 
† Deut. 1● 16. & 30.  circumcision of the heart, and the heart of their seed, as before is showed, and they had the grace together with the outward sign, & therefore your reason is insufficient, and the scriptures you pervert from their true meaning.  
touching the place of the Romans', 2. 29. the Apostle having convinced 
Rom. 2●  the jews of sin, vers. 17.— 24. they might object, what, doth our circumcision nothing profit us, that thou equalest us to the sinners of the Gentiles? yea saith he, if thou keep the law, else thy circumcision is made uncircumcision: vers. 25. And so preferreth uncircumcision keeping the law, before circumcision transgressing the law, vers. 26, 27. then by distinguishing between such as are true jews and hypocrites, & the inward and outward circumcision, showeth who is a true jew (not before men) but before God, viz: he that is one within, wherein is no guile, And that circumcision is available to salvation, which is not only outward but of the heart: this is the Apostles meaning, and not to teach, that the circumcision of the heart succeed in place of the circumcision of the flesh, etc. as you affirm.  
That other place, Col. 2. 11. maketh no more to your purpose then the 
●2. 11.  former, for the Apostle in that chapter dealeth against false teachers that urged the jewish religion to be joined with the gospel, in this verse he denieth that we have need of the circumcision of the flesh, (which was specially urged) seeing we are inwardly circumcised by the virtue of Christ's death, and withal teacheth that our baptism is a most effectual pledge, seal, and witness, of our inward renewing, or regeneration; therefore having baptism to confirm these graces unto them, need not the use of outward circumcision. And as for Ephe. 2. 11. the Apostle having before taught 
●●e. 2. 11.  that they were saved by grace through faith not of works, verses 8. 9 10. applieth the same doctrine to the Ephesians, showing that they were not only as the jews, by nature corrupt, but also after an especial manner, strangers, & without God, etc. and therefore ought so much the rather to remember the same to move them to greater thankfulness. And thus you may see how unfitly you have alleged these scriptures.  
And circumcision the seal of the flesh hath the holy spirit of promise, which is the spiritual seal to succeed in place thereof. Ephe. 1. 13. 14.  
Although circumcision was set in the flesh, yet was it not a seal of the flesh, but of the * spiritual covenant: and the holy spirit of promise succeeds 
Rom. 4. 11.  not in place of circumcision as you understand it: for the believing jews had both the spirit inwardly sealing up unto them, that heavenly covenant of salvation, as they had circumcision sealing the same outwardly: as in Abraham, Isaac, jacob and the rest: yea, the spirit in the Proselytes went before circumcision, for they being converted were after circumcised: Abraham before he had the outward seal was inwardly “ assured by the 
●om. 4. ●. 21. 22.  spirit and confirmed of the certainty of the promise. But to prove that the spirit of promise succeed in place of circumcision, you quote Ephes. 1. 13. 14. which scripture is misalledged; for the Apostle intendeth to show that the Ephesians were equal to the jews, because they were called by the same gospel, which they embraced by faith, and sealed up by the same spirit, which is the earnest of our inheritance: And not to teach that the spirit succeed circumcision. Again the spirit being invisible, is not given to us for a visible seal of the covenant.  
Further you say, I deny that the baptism of water is the seal of the new te●stament though I cannot deny that the Baptism of the holy Ghost is a seal. I say therefore that the seal of the spirit must go before the baptism of water, and as all the ordinances of the new testament are spiritual and yet visible, so is the seal of the new Testament, spiritual, and yet visible, and thereupon men being visibly sealed by the spirit, as Cornelius company was, Act. 10. 47. may challenge the baptism with water, as Peter there teacheth. This visible seal of the new testament is confession, as in the ●d testament circumcision was their confession, and baptism is not a seal, but a manifestation of the seal.  
First, you deny a principle of religion, and that which formerly you held, for in your book of Difference, etc. pag. 3. you call both breaking of bread and baptism seals of the covenant: these are your words. The publishing of the covenant of grace and the putting too of the seals is only one concrete action etc. for the publishing of the covenant giveth being to the seals, otherwise breaking of bread and baptizing are but putting of seals to a blank. And thus unstable are you in your ways.  
2. What if baptism be not called a seal? yet if it can be proved by scripture that it is a seal, we ought so to receive it. The sacraments given of God unto the Israelites were called seals, as 
† Rom. 4. & 15. 8.  circumcision by the Apostle is called, a seal of the righteousness of faith. And when God made with Abraham his covenant to be his God and the God of his seed, he gave him 
* Gen. 17. 10. 11. 1●  circumcision a sign thereof, which did confirm unto him and to his seed that which God did promise, as before the Lord had done to Noah to whom he gave the 
“ Gen. 9 9-17.  raynbowe as a sign of his promise, that the world should be no more destroyed with water: so the Passeover is called a sign, Exod. 13. 9 Now if circumcision be a sign and seal of God's covenant, as the Apostle testifieth, than it must needs be granted that baptism succeeding circumcision is also a seal of the Lords covenant, though the very word (seal) be not expressly set down in the scripture. And this the Apostle intimates, Act. 2. 39 where he exhorteth the believers to be baptized every one in the name of jesus Christ for the remission of sins, for the promise is to you and to your children. The Lord commanding his 
“ Mat. 2. 19  Gospel to be preached to all nations, commanded them also to be baptized, confirming by this outward sign, his covenant to all the believing Gentiles and their seed, as he had done to Abraham and his seed the same covenant by circumcision. * Paul, † Cornelius, “ Lydia and the Jailer, after they believed and had 
●ct. 9 17  received the covenant were baptized, which confirmed unto them the free * forgiveness of all their sins by the death of Christ. And this is plainly 
Act. 10.  taught us by Peter 1. Epistle 3, 21. where he saith, that baptism now also saveth us: Baptism cannot be said to save, as any cause thereof, 
Act. 16. ● 31. ●●k. 3. 3. ●ct. 2. 38. ●●. 6. 3. ●al. 3. 16 ●om. 7. 11 Mar. 16.  but in this respect, that it witnesseth and sealeth unto us from God, our salvation, that which circumcision did type out to come, the same doth baptism now signify to be fulfilled in Christ the true † seed, of Abraham. And as by “ circumcisiion the righteousness of faith was sealed: so by Baptism salvation is sealed, as Christ saith * he that believeth and is baptized shallbe saved.  
Again, Rom. 6. 3. Paul saith, all we that have been baptised into jesus Christ have been baptised into his death. In which words the Apostle giveth us to understand, that by baptism, the benefits of the death of Christ, are on the Lord's behalf confirmed unto us. And if this be not the signification of baptism, let it be showed out of the word what else is minded by these phrases, baptized into the death of Christ, and buried with him, by baptism into his death?  
Thus have I showed that baptism is a seal of the new Testament, which you deny, affirming a new kind of seal thereof, viz: Confession, & say, the seal of the spirit, must go before baptism. Which two in my understanding differ far one from another, for confeession, is the act of man, as the Apostle saith, * with the mouth man confesseth unto salvation, & proveth sometime to be 
Rom. 10. ● Act. 8. 13  hypocritical, as that of Simon Magus was: But the baptism of the holy Ghost is an action of God, and is either an internal work of the spirit, as Mat. 3. 11. or else external, by some visible signs and extraordinary gifts, Act. 1. 8. & 2. 2. 3. 4. and 10. 44.- 47. This latter now ceaseth; being then given of God, for the further confirming of the Gospel in the Churches newly planted, until the faith of Christ was fully established amongst the Gentiles, and therefore is no ordinary seal of the new Testament given by Christ to be continued unto the end of the world, though I confess those extraordinary gifts of the spirit, miracles & works done by the Apostles and other of the servants of Christ, have still their use in the Church to confirm the truth of God by them published.  
And as for men's confession of the faith, that can be no seal of the ●ew Testament; because it is imperfect, and oftentimes hypocritical, many falling away from the truth which formerly they professed, as Demas, Nicholas the Deacon, and those mentioned in the first epistle of john, chap. 2. 19 Now that which must seal God's covenant unto us, for the confirmation of our faith must be certain and perfect, and that from God, because it is he that promiseth salvation to all that believe, therefore it is he that only can give assurance of his own covenant, And as ●or our confession, it is but an outward testification of the grace of God bestowed upon us, it can no more be a seal of the new Testament, than the profession of the jews was of the old. And as you require of me ●here in all the scripture baptism is called a seal? so more justly may I demand of you where in all the new Testament that confession is called a seal. Besides if confession be a seal of the new Testament, than a man may be par taker of the scale, that is not of the Church, as they that confess their faith and yet are not admitted members of the communion of Saints.  
3. That the seal of the spirit must go before the baptism of water, etc. Understanding it as you do (of confession) than I grant, that such as were never of the Church, are first to make confession of their faith, & to testify their repentance before they can be admitted members of the Church and be baptized. Act. 8. 37. 38. but neither is such confession required of their infants, neither is it a seal of the new Testament, as before I have proved. Otherwise understanding the seal of the spirit, as the Apostle doth, Rom. 8, 15. 16. & Ephe. 1, 13. 14. so goeth it before and together with Baptism in all the elect of God whether infants or of years.  
As for that sealing with the spirit, of Cornelius company, which you instance, Act. 10. 47. whereby you seem to understand, confession, you cannot but know, that the spirit which came upon Cornelius and his company by the hearing of Peter's words, was the extraordinary geving of the spirit, wherewith he and the rest were endued, and not only that ordinary confession of the faith required of each true believer, as by the text is plainly to be seen, which saith, that they of the circumcision were astonished as many as came with Peter, because on the Gentiles was powered out the gift of the H. Ghost, For they heard them speak with tongues. And chapter 11. 15. Peter saith, as I began to speak the holy Ghost fell on them, even as upon us at the beginning. Now Act. 2. 3. 4. it is written concerning the Apostles how the holy Ghost came upon them, viz: there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were filled with the holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance. This descending of the spirit upon the Apostles was extraordinary, (for he came not so upon all that were baptized. Act. 8. 36, 37. & 16. 14. 15. 33,) seeing * the multitude was astonished 
●ct. 2. 6. ●.— 12.  wondered all and marveyled. Therefore that coming of the spirit upon Cornelius and his company, was extraordinary: for Peter saith, The holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning: also Peter distinguisheth between the holy Ghost that fell on them, & baptism; for he seeing them partakers of the spirit, saith, can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptized that have received the holy Ghost as well as we?  
This visible seal seal of the new Testament, (say you) is confession, as in the old Testament, circumcision was their confession.  
That confession, is not the seal of the new Testament I have already proved. And as for circumcision to be their confession in the old Testament, thus far may be granted, that it was a sign separating them from the Gentiles, and whereby they were known to be Gods peculiar inheritance, and so is baptism now to us, a sign distinguishing us from jews and Pagans, but as we do not only confess the Lord to be our God by our baptism; 
Act. 19 ●. Rom. 10 10. King. 18 ●. Exo. 19 ●. Psa. 107. ●. 21. 31. Esa. 29. 13. ●e Dan. ch. 9 Exo. 12. ●8. Act. ●. 27. etc. Ezr. 6. 21.  but also by * professing of his name and truth: even so did the jews confess the Lord to be their God, and his truth not only by circumcisision, but also † with words to his praise. And I make no question, but the Proselytes before they were “ circumcised made confession of their faith.  
Baptism is not a seal, but a manifestation of the seal.  
I pray you Sir, of what seal is baptism the manifestation? Confession you say, is the visible seal of the new testament. Doth it manifest our confession? it needs not, for that is visible. If you mean that it signifieth the inward grace, it is true, but thereby we are assured of God's promise, and so is the visible seal thereof.  
Next you proceed to answer unto the scriptures which I alleged to confirm the consequence of my Argument: the first whereof is, Collos. 2. 11. 12. to prove that baptism cometh in the room of circumcision, this you deny so to be construed, and say:  
That the Apostle teacheth the virtue of Christ's circumcision and baptism which is mortifying and burying of sin and resurrection from sin, and not to teach that in the new Testament baptism succeed circumcision, etc.  
That baptism succeed circumcision as a seal to the same covenant of grace whereof circumcision was the seal, I will further manifest & prove both out of this place of the Collossians, and also by other reasons. First as 
Coll. 2. 1 12.  touching Col. 2. 11. The Apostle reasoning against joining of legal ceremonies with the Gospel, proveth that the Church stands no need thereof, seeing they are fully furnished with all things in Christ: and because the adversaries did especially urge circumcision as necessary to salvation, he answereth, that neither needed they to be circumcised, because they were spiritually circumcised. And whereas the Collossions might have objected, that they that were under the law were inwardly circumcised, yet had they withal outward circumcision the seal thereof, which if we want, our state is not so good as their was: yea saith Paul that it is, for in stead of outward circumcision, you have baptism ordained of God to seal unto you and your children, under the Gospel, the same things that circumcision did seal unto the jews and their seed: this is the meaning of the Apostle, and therefore it is truly gathered from this place that baptism succeed circumcision: Now I will prove also by other reasons that Baptism succeed Circumcision as a seal of the same covenant.  
First, the sacraments of the new Testament have the same end & scope in respect of the thing signified, with the sacraments under the law. For as Paul attributed the same virtue, efficacy, and effect of our baptism & the Lords supper 
* 1 Cor. 1. 2. 3. 4.  to the fathers: so doth he ascribe to the believers under the gospel, the efficacy of the 
† Cor. ●  paschal lamb, 
“ Col. 2. 1● 12.  and circumcision; therefore in respect of the thing signed, there is no difference, the same Christ, was the Lamb 
* Rev. 13.  slain from the beginning of the world. Also the same instrument and means of application, the same 
† Rom. 4, 16. etc.  faith, end and effect, one and the same righteousness of faith, the same 
“ Gal. 3. 9  blessing with faithful Abraham, the same spiritual circumcision of the heart, both of the fathers under der the law and of us under the gospel: so that in all these things there is no difference; which plainly argues, that our sacraments succeed in place of the former sacraments.  
2, This may be further showed by comparing circumcision and baptism together in their special uses and ends. There is the same principal use and end of circumcision and baptism, viz: to * be signs of the covenant 
●o. 4. 11. ●. etc. Gal ●6. Mar. ●. 16. coned with ●om. 4. 11 Deut. 10. ●. & 30. 6 ●it. 3. 5. ●er. 4. 4. ●l. 2. 11. ●uk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 ●. 6. 4. 6. ●om. 2. 29. ●hil. 2. 3. Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 6. 1. Ephe. 5. 6. 1. Joh. 1 ●. Exo. 12. ●. Act. 8. ●. & 16. ●. 33. ●at. 28. 19 Ephe. 2. 11 ●2. 1 Cor. ●2. 13.  of the righteousness of faith in Christ: both of the sacraments of † regeneration, “ requiring repentance and mortification, both signifying that we are corrupt, and by the ¶ blood of Christ, to be cleansed, by both of them such as were * without, were received into the communion of the Church. And by both of them God's people were † discerned from other profane companies: And neither of them might be iterated. By which proportion and agreement we may see, that the one follows the other.  
Lastly, as circumcision was given as a sign of the covenant, when the Lord chose Abraham and his seed to be his people: so baptism was given together with the publishing of this covenant to the Gentiles, when circumcision was to cease, the partition wall removed, and both jews and Gentiles were made alike partakers of the covenant and of baptism the sign thereof. Which argueth that the mind of the Lord was to give to his Church, Baptism, to confirm unto it, those things which before he had witnessed to Abraham by circumcision. And thus I have proved Baptism to succeed Circumcision, and so answered your mistaking of that place of the Collos. 2. 11. 12.  
Again you say that I would insinuate a restraint in the new Testament if baptism be not due to infants; seeing circumcision was due to infants in the old testament, whereunto you answer many ways, saying,  
1.  Baptism doth not succeed Circumcision, this allegation is nothing to the purpose. 2. seeing baptism is both to male and female it is larger than circumcision which was only upon the male 3.  baptism is both to Jew and Gentile, therefore more large than circumcision, but these things are almost nothing to the purpose: but now I say more pertinently, that the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, is now as large as ever it was, for it was never made with Abraham and all his carnal children, but only with Abraham and the faithful, and so that continueth in the same tenure still, and it is enlarged now since Christ's coming only in respect of the clearer and more universal publication of it, etc.  
Concerning the first particular of your answer, I have already proved Baptism to succeed circumcision, & then my allegation is to purpose you ●nnot deny. To the second, I answer, that though baptism be both to ●ale and female, and circumcision only to the male, yet is not the seal●g of the covenant so large under the gospel as under the law, if infants ●e excluded from it: for though women were not circumcised, yet were ●hey comprehended in the covenant with the males, and their state was as ● they had been circumcised. Gen. 34. 14. And though baptism be ●o women, yet denying it to children, it makes a restraint: for to place ●omen in the stead of children is not an enlarging, but a change.  
To the third particular of your answer, that baptism is both of jew and ●entile, and therefore more large. I answer, so was circumcision to jew and Gentile, for all the Gentiles might have been circumcised, if they had pro●ssed the faith: therefore it will follow that you do restrayn the seal of God's covenant by denying it to infants. But these things, you say, are almost ●thing to the purpose: therefore to your second answer, that you say, is more ●rtinent, viz: that God never made the spiritual covenant with Abraham and all ●is carnal seed, but only with Abraham and the faithful. It is certain that God made his covenant with Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17. 7. and to that seed of his to whom was promised and given the land of Canaan, to that 
* Gen. 17 8.  seed did God promise to be their God: but to Abraham's natural seed was promised and given the land of Canaan, Ergo to them did God promise to be their God & so made with them his covenant of grace in Christ then to come. The same may be seen by the 
† Deut. ● 10.— 15;  renewing of this covenant, as formerly hath been showed.  
I affirm, that circumcision was never a seal of God's covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, etc.  
I have proved the contrary before, and have also showed that the confession 
“ pag. 12.  of believers under the Gospel is not the seal of the new Testament, then is it not so large as circumcision: for that infants were circumcised, but Confession is only of them that are grown to years. As for your opposing of true believers, to the carnal Israelites circumcised, it is not a just and equal opposition, for actual believers are only of persons grown to years, but the circumcised were not only of such, but also their infants. And thus you lessen both the covenant and seal thereof, if things be taken in their due proportion, though you pretend the contrary, deceived by your own devised definitions and distinctions.  
Lastly, to 2 Cor. 1. 20. you answer, saying, this place is strained to the 
●or. 1. 20  proving thereof; for the meaning of it is that unto the faithful, all the Lords promises are verified, but his promise was never, that all their carnal seed should have baptism as a seal of life and salvation, but that all believers should have the spirit of promise which is the new Testaments seal.  
You grant that the meaning of this scripture is that all the Lords promises are verified to the faithful, and further than this I do not strain it: but do affirm, that this promise of life in Christ, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed * was made to faithful Abraham and his seed: which promise 
Gen. 17. 7.  he received that he should be the father of circumcision, and the father of all that believe, not being circumcised, Rom. 4. 12. 11. But where you say the promise was never that their carnal seed should have baptism as a seal of life. I answer, that those whom you call carnal seed, being the infants of the faithful, are a † holy seed, in respect of that title and right which they have 
Cor. 7. 14 Pet. 2. 9 〈◊〉. 11. 16  to the covenant received by their parents, though they be carnal, inasmuch as they are begotten and born of them after the common course of nature. And therefore being holy, and children of the covenant, have also a right to Baptism, as hath been, and shallbe further proved in the residue of the arguments following. Here also out of your answer you set down five arguments against Poedobaptistrie.  
1. If all the carnal infants of Abraham were never actually under the everlasting covenant in respect of the actual possession of it, than they never had title to the seal of the everlasting covenant. But all the carnal infants were never actually under the everlasting covenant in respect of the actual possession of it, seeing Abraham's children according to his actual faith were only under it. Rom. 4. 11. Ergo, etc.  
I answer, unto the major, that to be under the everlasting covenant, is to be considered two ways, 1. according to the Lords external dispensation, thereof, who of his free grace “ maketh his everlasting covenant 
Act. 2. 39  with the faithful and their seed. 2. according to God's secret election; in the former sense, all the carnal infants of Abraham were, and all the infants of the faithful are, under the covenant. * For if the root be holy, so 
Rom. 11. ●. Gen. 17. 7 ● 11. 12. ●at. 28. 19  are the branches: And therefore as the infants have right to the covenant, through the free grace and large promise of God: so have they † to the seal thereof, which is administered by the commandment of God, according to the outward dispensation of his covenant, and not after his secret election, according to which election, neither all the carnal infants of Abraham, or all the seed of the faithful, or yet all that make 
* 1 Io. ●  visible profession of their faith and stand members of true Churches, are under the covenant, save only the elect. But thus to understand, to be under the actual possession of it, as it is proper only to the true children of Abraham, so the certain knowledge thereof 
† 2 Tim▪ 19  belongs only to God. And thus you see the majors consequent, in a right understanding of the covenant doth not follow.  
Your second is this, If Baptism doth not succeed circumcision, than Baptism doth not pertain to carnal infants. But Baptism doth not succeed Circumcision, because the seal of the spirit is correspondent to the typical seal of the flesh, and Baptism with water is only the manifestation of the seal. Ergo, etc.  
The consequent of the major of this argument is not necessarily true, for though baptism should not succeed circumcision, yet may it pertain to the natural children of believers by virtue of the commandment of God. But I deny the minor, and do affirm that Baptism doth succeed circumcision, as I have formerly proved. The reason of your assumption is also before disproved, for the spirit as you understand it, for our confession, is not correspondent to circumcision, seeing infants are excluded.  
Your third is this, If circumcision did not seal up the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnal infants (than by your proportion) baptism doth not seal up the everlasting covenant to the faithful & their carnal infants. But circumcision did not seal up the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnal infants. Ergo, etc.  
The Assumption is false being rightly understood, viz: in respect of their outward standing; and the contrary is proved before, to wit, that circumcision did seal up visibly the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his seed. Gen. 17. 7. etc.  
Your fourth is this, If believing Parents do not stand in Abraham's room to convey the covenant to their infants, then though they be baptized themselves yet their children shall not. But the believers do not stand in Abraham's room to convey the covenant to their infants, for no man is the father of the faithful, as Abraham was, and he did never convey the everlasting covenant to his carnal infants▪ Ergo, etc.  
For conveying of the everlasting covenant, this is that which we say, that it is conveyed to the children, by the free grace and disposing of the Lord, who giveth his covenant both to the believers and to their seed,  
And although the believing parents stand not in Abraham's room to be the father of many nations; yet stand they in Abraham's room in this, that as * God did convey his everlasting covenant by Abraham believing 
●. 17. 7 ●. 2. 39 ●. 7. 14 ●. 11. 9.  to his seed: so doth the Lord convey † his covenant, to the children of believers: for this is common to Abraham with all the faithful, To believe God to be their God and the God of their seed; and thus entered Abraham's carnal seed, (as you call them) into the everlasting covenat, as before is proved. And be it that all their seed are not within God's election, (yet leaving secret things to the Lord) we are to believe the promise to be established to all our seed indefinitely, and not to put difference, before the time, that they by their works do manifest that they are not the true seed of Abraham. Amongst them that confess jesus Christ, and “ are members 
●oh. 2.  of the visible Church many depart away, yet we account them children of the covenant until their hypocrisy be discovered: and so in like manner are we to esteem of the infants of the believers as * holy, until the contrary 
●or. 7.  appear.  
Your fift argument is this: If infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of true believers children of Abraham: but only occupy the place of carnal children, then although the true children of Abraham in the actual believers be baptised, yet the infants shall not which cannot believe actually.  
But the infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham: seeing the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham, Joh. ●. 39 which infants cannot do. Ergo, etc.  
First, it is denied that the infants of the faithful do only occupy the place of the carnal children as you understand it; for they are also the † children 
●ct. 3. 32 ●at. ●.  of the covenant, and of the “ kingdom. Secondly, the consequent of the major (according to the true meaning of the terms therein used) is also denied, the contrary is proved before, viz: that infants are to be baptized though they have not the actual use of faith. To the minor I answer, that children so far as we can see do occupy the place of the 
Act. 2. 29 ●t. 29. ● 15.  true children of Abraham, for to * them is the promise, and in that respect children of Abraham, as hath been said.  
Your reason drawn from john 8. 39 to prove that infants do not occupy the place of true children, is not truly gathered from that scripture, for Christ there proveth, that the jews living wickedly were not the children of Abraham as they pretended to be, seeing they did not the deeds of Abraham: and he speaketh to men of years, of whom the practice of ●●ith is required. Now to apply this against infants of whom God requires ●o such works, is like as if one should reason from 2. Thes. 3. 6. that because children cannot work, therefore they must not eat. And such is ●our absurd reasoning from this place. Now when children of believers do come to years to manifest their infidelity by their works, we are accordingly to judge of them, after the example of Christ, and not before. Thus much to your five reasons, whereof not one is of weight to prove that infants ought not to be baptized.   

Argument III.  
Marc. 10. 13. 14. & Mat. 19 13. 14.  
They that are of the kingdom of God have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging, and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive.  
But the infants of believing parents are of the kingdom of God. Therefore the infants of believing parents have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging, and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive and consequently of baptism, seeing they are capable of it.  
The major Proposition I think will not be denied, it is written, 1 Cor. 3, 21. 22. All things are yours, Rom. 9 4.  
The assumption is Mat. 19 13.— 17. For of such is the kingdom of God, meaning that his kingdom stood not only of such as being of years that believed, but also of their infants. And this he declareth not only in this saying, but also by his displeasure against his Disciples for hindering their coming unto him: also by commanding to suffer them to come, and by putting his hands upon them, and blessing them. Mat. 19 13. 14. 15. For would Christ have blessed them that were not of his kingdom? or do not the blessings appertain only to the children of the kingdom, even to the seed of Abraham, Gal. 3. 8. 18.  
If it be objected that children are not capable of baptism, I answer, they are as capable thereof, as the infants of Israel were of circumcision, being both partakers of the same promises with them, and in all respects as capable of the outward seals of the covenant as they were. And therefore the infants of believers are to be baptized.  M. Smyth. 
To this Argument of yours I make answer diversely: First you have not proved that the visible Church and all the ordinances thereof pertain to infants of the faithful: for the infants of the jews that were presented to Christ were not infants of believers etc.  Rich: Clifton. 
You answer, (you say) diversely, but yet your answer would have been more direct and plain to my understanding if you had denied either proposition or distinguished; in stead whereof you demannd divers questions; deny the sequel of the conclusion, and pretend absurdities to follow; notwithstanding I will answer to your particulars.  
And first, where you say, I have not proved that the visible Church, and all the ordinances thereof pertained to infants, etc. I have proved that which I undertook, viz: both the parts of my argument, and you deny neither, but say I have not proved the conclusion, which if the Argument be in mood and figure must necessarily follow upon true premises,  
Next you say, the infants that were presented to Christ, were not infants of believers for aught that I see, etc.  
Neither have you any likelihood to judge them to be infants of any others 
●at. 10. ●. Mat. ●. 13. 14.  that were not either of the jews or Proselytes: for would Christ receive the infants of the unbelieving Gentiles, and to say of them, of such is the kingdom of God? therefore it cannot be that they were the children of unbelievers, unless we shall imagine that Christ did practise contrary to the course ● hath set down for the receiving of them, into his covenant that are without, also this was in 
* Mar. ● 1.  judah by the far side of Iorden whether the people resorted unto him again 
† Mar● 10. Mat▪ 1.  after he was come out of Gallily, And though the text mention not who they were that brought the infants to Christ, nor ●hose they were (as it was not needful for us to know) yet by the circumstance of the place and persons coming then unto him, it cannot otherwise be thought, but that they were of the children of the jews or proselytes; and as for your likelihood to the contrary, it is no likelihood at all, seeing the Disciples failed in many things: 
“ Luk. 9 54. 55.  they also besought him to send the Cananitish away, yet he received her. Now the cause why the Disciples would have had the Canaanite sent away, was for that she cried after 
* Mat. 1● 22. 23. 2●  them, and it may be this was the reason why the disciples rebuked them that brought the infants, because they troubled them, or it may be they thought infants uncapable of knowledge and so could not profit by the word preached, but this matters not, for by Christ's reproving of them, it is manifest that they erred in so doing: & that they ought not to have forbidden children to have been brought unto him.  
You say, it may be they were the children of some of the Roman soldiers or some Ca●anish persons.  
So it may be the parents of these infants were proselytes and most likely they were jews: but what is this to the purpose; answer to the argugument, for this is but to seek shifts when you cannot find a sufficient answer. But suppose (say you) they were children of the Jews how is it proved that their parents were believers, seeing the jews for the most part were stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart.  
Although some of the jews were stiff-necked, yet how is it proved that these were the infants of such? seeing many of the 
“ joh. 7. ●  people believed in him: nay rather the contrary appears by 
* Mar● 10. 1. 13.  their coming to hear Christ and the bringing of their infants unto him, that they were not of those that were stiff-necked, for would they have sought to Christ to bless their children if they had despised him? And although the parents of these infants might be such as yet were not fully instructed that the Messiah was come whom they looked for, (the contrary is more probable) yet did they profess the Lord to be their God whom they ought to worship, & therefore were in external account, believers and members of the Church.  
If they had been the children of believing jews that were baptized by John ●● Christ's disciples▪ etc.  
Whether these Infants or their Parents were baptized by john or Chr. disciples the scripture mentioneth not, neither is it greatly material for us to know, else the spirit had reveyled it: that they were blessed of Christ there is no question. But say you, if they were baptized what need was there to bring them to Christ, except i● were for popish confirmation. The Scripture sets down the end why, viz. that † Christ should lay his hands on them, and pray for 
●uk. 18. ●. Mat. ●, 13. Gen. 48. ●— 20. Mar. 7. ●. Luk. 4. ●. Act. 9 17. Act. 8. ●— 19 Act. 19 ●6.  them, or bless them. The laying hands on the party blessed, was practised by the * father's, when they would pray for, or bless their children. Christ used it in “ working of miracles, for they that brought the deaf man prayed him to put his hands upon him: all they that had sick of divers diseases brought them unto him, and he laid his hands on every of them and healed them. Also Christ's disciples practised this laying on of hands & praying, not only in † curing the diseased, but also * upon them that were baptized. And Paul “ laid his hands upon those twelve at Ephesus who were baptized with john's Baptism.  
If the Apostles might lay their hands upon them that were already baptized and pray for them, (and this I hope was no popish confirmation) might not our Saviour do this to these Infants if they were baptized, but it must be a needless thing to bring them unto him thus to be blessed? And though you say, I cannot from hence conclude Baptism, yet from hence I do conclude that Christ performed that action to Infants, that his disciples did afterward unto such as were baptized, viz. laying on of hands and prayer: & likewise I can conclude that Christ admitted of Infants to come to him, and that he prayed for them, And “ he prays not for the world. 
●oh. 17. 9 M●r. 10.  And that also he pronounceth, that † of such is the kingdom of God. And therefore whether Baptism can be denied to such let the godly reader judge.  
I avouch constantly against you that either they were not the children of the jews, or they were not the Infants of believing jews, or if their parents believed, yet it followeth not tha● those Infants were of the kingdom of God or to be baptized: for Christ doth not say of these, but of such is the kingdom of God.  
Although you do so constantly avouch against me, yet it is but your stout denial, without any reason or probability to the contrary. That these Infants which were brought to Christ were of the jews, I have showed my reasons before.  
But not believing (say you) I answer, how dare you deny them to be professors? (of the heart we are no judge) stood they not members of the visible church? and are they not so long to be accounted for believers? nay, they came to hear Christ, and by presenting their children unto him, and desiring him to pray, testified their faith in him, and 
† 1 Cor. 1● 7.  charity binds us to esteem of such in the better part.  
If their parents believed, yet it followeth not that therefore these Infants were of the kingdom of God, or to be baptized etc.  
It doth follow that these infants were of the kingdom of God, in that Christ prayed for them Mar. 10. 16. conferred with Mar. 19 13. but he 
* Joh. 17, ●  prayed not for them that are not of his kingdom.  
Yea, Christ saith not of these, (say you) but of such.  
And do you not think in your conscience that Christ in these words (of such) included those infants? would he include others like to them & exdude them? As concerning that place of Mat. 18. 3. 6. which you allege to cross my interpretation of these words, it gains you nothing: for the disciples coming to Christ and ask who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, he teaching them humbleness, called a little child (not a man of years) and set him in the midst of them saying, except ye be converted & become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, using the same word in this place for little children, Mat. 18. 3. that is in Mark. 10. 15. In Mat. 18. 6. for (little ones) is used another word, that will as well agree to men of years, so they be humble, as to children. And in verse the third Christ doth not deny children to be of the kingdom of God, but teacheth his disciples by a simile to be humble minded as little children, or else they could not enter into the kingdom of God, 
† Esa, 66. 3● Jam. 4. 6. 10. 1 Pet. ●. 5. 6.  who regards the lowly, and giveth grace to such. And this doth rather confirm my exposition, in teaching none can enter into the kingdom, but such as shall be like to infants.  
Besides, how can you prove that by the kingdom of God Christ understandeth the visible Church of the new Testament?  
First for answer to this question, I will send you to Mr. Smyth in his 
* printed A. 1609.  Parallels, Censures and Observations, pag. 22. who saith, That the true visible Church is CHRIST'S sheepfold, his kingdom, etc. Also pag. 15. of the same book, The true Church in the scripture is called the house of God, the Temple of God the howsehould of faith and the kingdom of heaven, of Christ and of God. And in 17. pag. of the same book these are your words they that are not of a constituted Church are no subjects of Christ's kingdom, and pag. 16. you say, that the visible Church is the only kingdom of Christ, & that therefore they who are not members of Christ's true visible Church are no subjects of Christ's kingdom, the like is affirmed in pag. 18. 19 considering therefore what you have written, I marvel you demand this question, for by your own words you insinuate that the kingdom of Christ or of God, is the only visible Church, in that you say, they are not of Christ's kingdom that are not members of a true constituted Church, and then must it needs follow that by kingdom of God in this place, is understood the visible Church 
Rev. 18. 4 Luk. 19 ●. 12. Act. 3. Mat. 5. ●. Gen. 17. ●. Psal. 73. ●. Psal. 147 ●. Rom. 9 Esa. 28. ●6. & 51. 3 ●. chap. 54 ●s. 132. 13 ●— 17. Ps. 128. 1- ●. Ps. 13 ● 112. 1. 2 & 119. 1 ●. 92. 13 & 4. 4. 5. ●at. 5. 1— ●. Eph. 5. 25  of the new Testament, seeing you say, it is the only kingdom of Christ. but I do not consent unto you herein, for there be many of the kingdom of God, that are no members of a true constituted visible Church, as * Gods people in Babylon, and those seven thousand in Israel that never bowed their knee to Baal. The kingdom of God extends more largely, (though invisibly) then to the visible Church.  
2. To your question, I answer, that the visible † Church of the new Testament is the kingdom of God: and so to understand it in this place of Ma●k 10. 14. 15. is nothing repugnant to the circumstance and scope thereof, although the kingdom of glory is also intended, both which are but one, yet diversely considered. And he that hath right to the one part hath right also to the other: and therefore Christ saying, of such is the kingdom of God he meaneth his whole kingdom of grace and glory.  
Or how can you prove that Christ blessed none but members of the visible Church?  
First, I never did affirm that Christ blesseth none but the members of the visible Church, and therefore you have no reason to require the proof thereof at my hands. 2. If your question be of God's general blessings, than I answer, that the Lord causeth “ the sun to shine upon the just and unjust, and the rain to fall upon the good and evil; all nations and people are partakers of many temporal blessings. But if you speak of spiritual blessings and of those that are purchased by Christ's death than I say, * such blessings appertain to the Church, and to the † true members thereof whether visible or invisible, because “ Christ is given only to his Church, 〈◊〉 
* 1 Cor. ● 2 Cor. 1. ● 21. 22.  whom all the promises of God are yea and in him, Amen.  
Or how can you prove that the blessing of Abraham, appertaineth only to the members of the visible Church, etc.  
And I ask you, why you put me to the proof of it, seeing I never held any such thing. Nay, I deny that the blessing of God reacheth no further than to the members of the visible Church, for the Church's 
† King. 18. Rev. 4.  members are many invisible, but that the blessing of Abraham pertaineth to the visible Church, I hope you will not deny, see Ephe. 2. 11-22. & 3. 6- 19 & 4. 8. 14. 2 Cor. 4. 9 Col. 1. 3-6. 1 Thes. 1. 2.- 10. in all which places & in divers others, it doth appear that these visible Churches had received the blessing of Abraham.  
Or that from this particular of Christ's praying for infants, Mar. 10. 13. baptizing of infants to follow.  
My argument from this place of Mat. 10. 13. 14. to prove that baptism belongs to the infants of believers, you have already, and have not answered it, why require you it again. I have proved that infants are of the Kingdom of God, as also that the holy things of God, as baptism, etc. belong to all the members of this kingdom: But further to satisfy your desire, thus I prove baptism to belong to infants, from this particular of Christ's praying for them:  
For whom Christ prayed, they were of his everlasting covenant, for he prayed for them 
¶ joh. 17. 10. 20.  which were given him, and not for the world.  
But Christ prayed for these infants, Mat. 19 13.  
Therefore these infants were of his everlasting covenant, and so consequently baptism the sign thereof belonged unto them, seeing God both in making 
“‘ Gen. 17 7. 10.  this covenant with Abraham, gave to him and to his seed together with it circumcision the seal thereof. And also in commanding the 
† Mat. 2● 19  publishing of the same covenant to all nations did withal command baptism to be administered.  
Again, those whom Christ blesseth, he blesseth with the blessing of Abraham, Gal. 3. 14. conferred with vers. 8. 16. 9  
But Christ blesseth these infants: Mar. 10. 16.  
Therefore Christ blesseth them with the blessing of Abraham, and so consequently these infants were capable of baptism, because the Lord hath joined together the blessing or covenant, and the sign or seal thereof, as before hath been showed.  
Or how can you prove that Christ obtained for them, & prayed for remission of sins, the holy Ghost, faith, everlasting life, for many were brought to Christ for relief of bodily infirmities.  
And I demand of you again, for what other things should Christ pray for these Infants, but for spiritual graces; there is no mention that they were brought for the curing of any bodily infirmity in them, and if they had been diseased it is like the Apostles would not have hindered their 
Mat: 19 ●.  coming to Christ, & the end of their † bringing of their infants to him was to put his hands upon them and to pray. The reason that Christ yieldeth why they should suffer little children to come to him, (because of such is the kingdom of God) doth argue of what nature the things were he prayed for. Again, where Christ prayed for the curing of any corporal disease, 
Mat: 8. 4. 15. & ●. 28. 29. ●. Mat: 8. ●6.  it is recorded with what * infirmity they that he prayed for, were troubled; that so the miracle might be known, which was the end of his doing of great works. The “ Centurion requiring Christ for his servant, showed his disease: but those that brought the infants, mention no corporal infirmity, for which they should desire him to pray for them.  
Thus you having made all these questions, you proceed to a second answer saying,  
I deny that it followeth because Christ blessed some of the infants of the jews or Gentiles upon special entreaty, therefore that it may hence be concluded, that generally the covenant and the seal of the covenant (as you call baptism) doth appertain to them, for there is not the same reason of all infants as of some specially blessed, as john Baptist, jeremy, Samson.  
I marvel greatly, that you will thus shift off: doth not my reason prove, that the covenant and seal thereof appertaineth to the infants of the faithful, seeing of such is the kingdom of God? Doth Christ say these infants are blessed only, because they alone are of the kingdom of God? Nay, saith he not of such (including other infants also) is the kingdom of God? And doth not the reason which our Saviour useth here, why these infants should come to him infer so much? for they that brought them, being stayed, he reasons thus against his disciples why they ought not to hinder them, because of such (as these are,) is the Kingdom of God, meaning, not all infants, but the infants of believers as these were.  
But in that you say, there is not the same reason of all infants, as of some spe●●lly blessed, etc.  
Neither do we reason for such special blessings or callings, as were ●iven to John Baptist, Jeremy or Samson, but for the right of the covenant ●o appertain to all the seed of the faithful: for although God do out of ●he seed of believers chose some whom he will employ to special service a●ove others, and therefore doth bestow on them more than ordinary ●iftes, yet this hinders not the rest of the infants of the faithful from ●heir right to God's covenant or common salvation.  
Neither indeed can you prove, that these infants which were blessed of Christ, were blessed with any extraordinary blessings or callings, for no ●●ch things is recorded of them, therefore to compare them & their bles●nge with these three extraordinary servants of God, John Baptist jeremy ●d Samson, is not to make an equal comparison.  
Thirdly, If Baptism doth appertain to infants because Christ blesseth some particular infants, and because Christ saith the Kingdom of God appertains to such, than the lords supper also.  
I answer, that doth not follow; the ordinances of Christ belong to the members of the Church and they are to partake of them as they are capable.  
The infants of the jews could receive circumcision at eight days of age, but could not eat the : so likewise the children of Christians are capable of Baptism the first day of their birth, but not of the Lords ●pper because the Lord jesus, of such as participates thereof, requires 
† 1. Cor. 11 26-31.  to examine themselves, to show forth the Lords death etc. which children cannot perform in regard of their years. And therefore it will not follow that if infants are to be baptized, therefore to receive the Lords supper. And though you would prevent this answer, by saying. They must have it (meaning the Lord's supper) as soon as they can eat it; I grant as much, as soon as they can eat it, as the Lord hath 
* 1. Cor. 11 27.  commanded,  
They cannot confess their sins and faith, and so cannot be baptized.  
To this objection sufficient answer is given already, and further occasion of answer will follow.  
4. I would know, why the Apostles put infants back, and why Christ did not command them to be baptized, etc.  
Why would you know that which is not written? that the Apostles did not well in putting them back, Christ his rebuking of them, doth manifest: What may be conjectured hath been noted before. And as fo● Christ his not commanding them to be baptized, I answer, Christ performed that which they required of him, the text doth not mention that they came to desire baptism, and therefore there was no cause that he should command them to be baptized.  
Next you labour to weaken such proves as I brought from the scriptures to confirm my Argument withal, saying.  
You see by that which hath been answered, that both your mayor and minor are weak, and the scriptures alleged by you do not confirm them, for the place, 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. declareth that all things are yours, that is theirs that actually believe and are baptised, etc.  
My major and minor are so weak, that you can disprove neither of them. As touching your answer to this scripture, 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. you apply it 
Cor. 3. 21 ●2.  only to them that actually believe, which the text saith not, the Apostles meaning in this place is, that all such helps as the Lord jesus hath appointed for the benefit of his people are theirs, whether they be men of years, or infants for he speaks to the whole Church inclusively whereof the children are members, † as hath been proved. But you say, I must prove 
Mat. 8. 12 Act. 13. 32 Gen. 12. 3. Mar. 10. 14 ●  that infants have the use of all. I have answered that they are to have the use of so many of God's ordinances, as they in regard of their years and knowledge are able to partake of. But not satisfied herewith, you demand further saying,  
Do you think that the members of the Churches are not capable of all the means of salvation, etc.  
I answer, that all the members of the Church are capable and partakers 
Eph. 5. 25 ●6. 27. Cor. 1. 30. Heb. 10. 10 Act. 4. 12.  of all the means of their * salvation, which is jesus Christ, yea children, † else can they not be saved. But as concerning the outward ordinances of the Church, as the ministery of the word, Sacraments and such like, though they be necessary in their due place, yet the use of them is not at all times and of all persons required; the Israelites borne in the wilderness were not circumcised by the space of forty years, neither was the Passeover commanded to infants, to offer sacrifice or the like, (though 
† D●●. 12. Rev. 7. Heb. 2. Act. 31. Jer. ●. Mar. 10.  these were necessarily required of them that were grown to years;) so that time and age doth privilege some from the practice of those things which otherwise they are bound to observe;  
The next Scripture is, Rom. 9 4. wherein you except against the 
Kom. 9  word (appertaineth) and say. It is put into the text and perverteth the meaning ●f the Apostle. For your excepting against the word, (appertaineth) saying, it is ● into the text, you seem to contend, before you be provoked, I only quoted that place of Rom. 9 4. and did not set down the words. And therefore to strive about a word added in the translation, is to strive against your own shadow, I defend no words added, whereby the text is misconstrued. But although no verb be expressed in the original, yet grammatical construction requires some verb to be understood▪ as this verb (is,) or appertaineth, or some such like, and if (is) be understood, it is the same, in sense with (appertaineth).  
But you say, Paul intendeth not to prove that the carnal Israelites were actually within the covenent of grace etc.  
Paul intends to set down the dignity and prerogative of the people which he had chosen to himself to be his inheritance, and to show that God's word is true, although Israel be cast of, he performeth his promise to so many of them as he had chosen in his secret counsel. And this is all that the Apostle intendeth. To your carnal covenant, and to the offer of the spiritual, I have answered before.  
Lastly, whereas I did affirm that infants under the Gospel were as capable of baptism, as children under the law, you answer. That baptism is not the seal of the covenant of the new Testament, as Circumcision was the seal of the old Testament, and that infants of the old Testament were capable absolutely, seeing that to be circumcised, there was nothing required, but a foreskin apt to be cut of: but to baptism in the new Testament, there is required actual faith, repentance confessed by the mouth Mat. 5. 6. Act. 8. 37. and 10. 47.  
That 
† pag. 37.  Baptism is the seal of the new Testament is proved before, & also that circumcision was 
* pag. 12.  a seal of the same spiritual covenant to the Israelites, and that our infants are as capable of baptism, as the jews were of circumcision, your reasons alleged to the contrary are of no force for the difference you put between the two sacraments of circumcision and baptism, is but a flourish, for as the profession of actual faith, and repentance is 
●zra. 6. 21. ●ter 8. 17.  required of all them that are of years to baptism, so † was it of the proselytes, to circumcision. And if you would compare Infants with Infants, and men of years with such like, then shall you see, that there is no more required of our infants that are to be baptized, then of the children of the jews and proselytes; nor less looked for of men of years under the old Testament, than now under the new. As for the scriptures that you allege, they witness what is required of the elder sort to be received into the visible Church, and not of infants. Out of this your answer you collect 5 arguments against Paedobaptistry, the first is this.  
They that are not members of the visible Church, have no title to the holy things of God, and therefore are uncapable of them: and so of baptism.  
Infants of the faithful are not actually members of the visible Church: for these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19 13. 14. do not prove that the parents of these infants were believing jews, or if they were believers their infants were already baptised with their parents according to your doctrine, and so Christ cannot intend baptism to appertain to them, but the rest of the ordinances. Ergo etc.  
I deny the minor, the reason proves it not, & do affirm, that the infants of the faithful are members of the same Church with their parents, & have right to the holy things thereof; as may thus be showed: first Abrahams house was a visible Church of God, the infants of Abraham and of his servants are 
Gen. 17. ●2.  said to “ be born in his house: whereupon I conclude that they were part of Abraham's family: for in that very place the holy Ghost distinguisheth between such as were borne in the house and bought with money, as between them that were by their birth of the family; & of those that being bought, were received into his house.  
Secondly; the children of believers be either members of the Church 
Ephe. 2. 12.  and within the covenant, or else without, if without, then are † they aliens from the common wealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, without Christ, without hope, and without God in this world: for this the Apostle sets down to be the state of them that are without: but thus Christ did not esteem of infants, (who said “ suffer little children to come to me, for of such is the kingdom 
“ Marc. 10 13. 14.  of God, nor Pau, 
† 1 Cor. 7. ●4.  that said, but now are they holy, speaking of the children of believers. Concerning the parents of these children that were brought to Christ, which you say, cannot be proved believers by these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19 13. 14. I have showed before what I thought of them. But if they ●re baptized, say you, Christ cannot intend baptism unto them.  
Who labours to prove that Christ in blessing them did intend Baptism unto them. This I said that such as are of the Kingdom of God, and capable of the blessing of Christ are not to be denied baptism. And that infants are such, I have proved from these scriptures. Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19 13. 14. And therefore baptism not to be denied them.  
2. If the Apostles by putting back infants presented to Christ declare plainly that infants were not to be brought to be baptized by Christ the infants were not to be baptized by Christ nor commanded to be baptized by him. But the first is true, Ergo etc.  
The assumption is denied, for if the children were not brought to be baptized, how can the Apostles putting them back signify that infants are not to be baptised? the bringers of them did express their mind wherefore they brought them. Again if the Apostles by putting the infants back did err, and by Christ are thereof rebuked, what can you conclude from their example, but this, not to judge them unworthy of Christ and of his ordinances, whom he approveth & receiveth. The Scripture speaks not one word, that they did put them back, as judging them unfit for baptism.  
3. If the persons presenting Infants to be blessed and prayed for, do not desire baptism for them, than they knew no such custom used by Christ to baptize them. But the first is true, Ergo etc.  
Whether they knew any such custom or not, it is not to the purpose, Christ did as occasion was offerred, he satisfied them according to their desire.  
4. If Christ receiving infants, praying for them, bl●ssing them, doth neither baptize them, nor command his disciples to baptize them, than either Christ's pleasure was they should not be baptized, or else he forgot his duty, in not teaching baptism of Infants upon so just an occasion. But Christ did neither baptize them, nor command his disciples to baptize them, neither did he forget his duty, etc. Ergo.  
I answer, the consequent follows not. Christ his pleasure was not against that 
† Gen. 17. 1●  general commandment given first to Abraham for the setting of the seal unto his covenant, to all the faithful and their seed. Also, Christ performed as much as they entreated for at his hands, and though he taught not all things at one time, yet was it no forgetting of his duty, ●eing in due time he taught all things.  
5. They that are not actually possessed of the promises or covenant, are not actually to be invested with baptism. Infants are not actually possessed in the co●●nant seeing they perform not the condition, viz. confession of their sins and their faith actually, Ergo, etc.  
If you mean (by actually possessed) such a state, right or possession, as the Lord of his free grace hath enfeoffed his people withal, by virtue of the 
●en. 17. 9 ●1. Act. 39 1 Cor. 14.  grant of his covenant to Abraham, I deny the minor, and say, that infants of believers are † children of the covenant and of the kingdom, and actually possessed thereof. As concerning the reason annexed to the minor it is answered before, that the Lord requires the actual use of faith and repentance of them that are of years, and not of infants. And thus much for confirmation of my third reason.   

Argument four  
1 Cor. 7. 14. If the children of believing parents be holy, then are they within the covenant of Abraham, and so consequently have right to the seal thereof.  
But the first is true, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ergo, the second.  
Touching the former proposition. I take it, that none will affirm holiness in any that are not of the covenant, for in that respect Israel was called an holy nation. Exod. 19 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9 and all others unclean, Act. 11. 3. and 10. 15. that were without. If infants be within the covenant, then cannot the seal be denied to such, seeing the Lord hath joined the promise and seal together, Gen. 17. 10. which no man may or aught to separate, Mat. 19 6.  
What can be objected against the assumption, I see not, seeing the Apostle plainly affirms; but now are your children holy. Unless it may be said, as of some I have heard, that as the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband, so are the children viz: to the use of their Father: but this to affirm is a great abusing of the scripture. For the Apostle in that place answering an objection that the faithful is defiled by the society of the unfaithful: proveth that the faithful husband may with good conscience use the vessel of his unfaithful wife, by an Argument from the effects, namely, because their children, which are borne of them, are accounted holy, or within the promise, God having said to all the faithful, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. As for that other strange exposition, that the Children of a believing father are no otherwise sanctified them the unbelieving wife is unto her husband, viz: to their father's use only, that can not stand with the meaning & purpose of the Apostle. For so much may be said of an unbelieving servant, that he is for the use of his master to do him service: if children be no more holy than so, then have they no prerogative in being the children of a believing Father, neither is the objection removed by this answer.  
If it be further pressed that the unbelieving wife is said to be holy, as well as the children, yet is she not within the covenant. I answer that she indeed is not holy, as be her children, for she being an infidel is without God's covenant, and therefore she is said to be sanctified to her husband, the Apostle respecting their marriage, which though it was contracted before either party believed, yet stands firm and not desolved when either of them is called to the faith, so that the believing husband may lawfully use her as his wife, if she be content to dwell with him, 1 Cor. 7. 12. Now the children cannot be sanctified or separated to such use to their father, as the wife is to her husband. And therefore are the children called holy, because they are the seed of a believing father.  Mr. Smyth. 
I answer, first denying your majors consequent:  that all the nation of the Jews were holy, and yet not within the covenant of Abraham. I mean as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ: that they were not all within that covenant is plain, Rom. 9 6. all they are not Israel which are of Israel: verse, 7. neither are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham, ver. 12. God revealed, that the elder should serve the younger, Act. 7. 51. ye have always resisted the holy Ghost, as your forefathers have done so do you: etc.  Rich: Clifton. 
This is a strange opinion of yours, that a people of God can be holy, & be without the covenant in Christ. Is there a people called out and separated from the world to offer sacrifices and to worship God, which may be called and are a holy people considered out of Christ? The covenant made with Abraham, and his seed in Christ to come (which Abraham received) caused that the Israelites were called * a holy nation or a holy people, 
Exod. 19 Rom. 11. ●. H●b. 4. 2. Rom. 11. ●6.  collectively, being separate from the nations to be the house & kingdom of God. And although † many of the jews by unbelief cut of themselves from the privileges of Abraham: yet considering the rest of that people as his seed, and the general face of that Church in the true constitution thereof, they were holy as the Apostle saith, “ if the root be holy so are the branches, and if the first fruits be holy, so is the whole lump. As it is one thing to consider of a Church in respect of the whole, as it is one body of Christ; and another thing, to consider thereof, according to every particular member: so is it one thing to call a people, holy, respecting their covenant in Christ into which they have solemnly entered. Deu. 29. 10.- 15. and promised to be God's people: and another, to consider thereof according to the personal holiness of every particular member: the Church hath the denomination of holiness, of the former, & not of the latter, (though this also be required) for the personal holiness of any particular members, causeth not the whole multitude to be called a holy people, (else might many assemblies be called holy, for that there may be and are some particular persons in the same endued with personal holiness) but their joint entering into God's covenant and fellowship in the same: & therefore let divers holy persons come together to serve the Lord intermingled with an Antichristian assembly, that congregation, shall not be called holy, because there 
Philip. 1. 2 Cor. 6. ●6. 17.  is not a separation of the clean from the unclean, and a joining together of the godly in one body or “ fellowship of the Gospel, neither can you ever prove that any people or congregation is called holy, with whom the Lord hath not made his covenant of salvation. But let us see how you reason.  
All the nation of the jews (say you) were holy, yet not within the covenant of Abraham etc.  
You reason not ad idem, for in saying that all the nation of the jews were called holy, here you speak of them, as they were a people separated from other nations, and had 
* Deut. 10, 15.  entered covenant with God to be his people, as he with them to be their God, in which respect they were called, holy, but in saying, that all were not with in the covenant, you intent it of some particular members of the body of that people, being considered a part from the whole, and so the Scriptures by you alleged do import.  
For neither Paul to the Romans. cha. 9 6. nor Steven in the Act. cha. 7. 51. do speak of the whole nation, but of particular persons who by their unbeleiffe and evil works, did manifest themselves to be no true Israelites.  
Concerning that place of rom. 9 6. the Apostle speaking of the rejection 
Rom. 9 ●  of the jews (which might there upon charge God that if he did reject them he kept not promise with their fathers,) labours to remove all such Calumnies, saying, it cannot be that the word of God should take none effect & proveth withal, that the promise is not cut of, though the jews for their unbelief be rejected, seeing the promise is sure to the elect. The Apostle thus speaking, not of the body of the people, but of some particulars that sell away, is falsely alleged, to prove, that all the nation of the jews were not within the covenant of salvation. And that some of them that were of Israel, were not true Israelites, who will deny, but that many of them discovered themselves to be no true sons of Abraham? yet this proves not that the whole Church in respect of the visible face of it, was not within the covenant.  
But you will reply, that you said, that they were not all within the covenant, and I answer again, if you reason not concerning the face of that people of Israel, but of God's secret election, and reprobation, it is not to the purpose, for so disputing, you answer not the Argument. And so may you reason against the visible Church under the Gospel, that not all therein, are within the covenant, because 
* Luk. 1● 25. 26. 27 1. joh. 2. 19  many prove hypocrites. And so by your reasoning neither the Church of the new Testament nor of the old, in respect of the general face thereof, are under the covenant of grace which is the thing controverted, and not the state of particular persons. As towchting that place of Act. 7. 51. Steven spoke to the jews there present to accuse him, but in so speaking did not accuse the whole body of the church under the old Testament, but those his persecutors, and there forefathers who also persecuted the Prophets before them, broke God's covenant and * so manifested themselves to be of their father the Devil. 
●oh. 8. 44.   
Now to reason thus, from the example of those wicked jews, and to say, many of the jews broke the covenant and became rebellious (for all did not) therefore the body of the people was never within the covenant, is to conclude upon a false ground.  
If it be objected that the place of the Romans is spoken in respect of Gods secret election and not of man's knowledge, I answer the twelft verse is plain of that which was reveled unto the church, and yet Esau was holy and circumcised, being not under the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ.  
The place I have expounded before, and have showed that the Apostle handles there no such thing as you do gather.  
As for the reveyling of this division of the son●s of Isaac which you say was to the church; indeed thus much was revealed to Rebecca, Gen. 25. 23. it was told her that two nations are in thy womb and two manner of people should be divided out of thy bowels, and the one people should be mightier than the other, & the Elder shall serve the younger, meaning that they that should descend of the Elder brother, should serve them that came of the younger▪ see the blessing of Isaac to his two sons. Gen. 27. 27. 28. 29, 39 40: Abdi. 10. but that the personal reprobation of Esau was revealed then to Rebecca or to the church, doth not appear in these words before rehearsed: can any say that none of Esau his posterty was in God's secret election? & if this scripture will not warrant any so to judge, than neither would it warrant Rebecca so to apply it to her son being so generally spoken.  
The personal rejection either of Ishmael or Esau was not reveled, until by their evil works they manifested themselves, and therefore these children being borne in the church, as Esau was in jacob's house, were to be reputed holy, to be circumcised and held of the covenant, until there wickedness threw them out.  
That the whole church of the Jews was not under the possession of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ, but only under the offer of it, I use these reasons, first, the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the new Testament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Testament. faith and 〈…〉 tance is the condition and obedience of the matter and members of the new Testa 〈…〉: Mar. 1. 15. Ergo, faith and repentance is not the condition or obedience of 〈◊〉 matter or members of the old Testament.  
Your proposition is not true, you exclude faith and repentance from ●he members of the old Testament, as if by their covenant they were not ●ound to believe and obey his commandments, which is contrary to these scriptures. Gen. 17, 1. 6. Rom. 4. 3. 13. Heb. 11. 17. jam. 2. 21.- 23. Deu. 19 9-20. & 10. 12. 13. 20. That repentance was required of the jews, not only the prophets often exhorting of them to repentance, do witness, as before is observed: but also in that their repètance 
† jud. 2. ● 1 Sam. 7. 3● Ezr. ca 1● Neh. cap. ● Deut. 9 10. Esa. 1● 16. 17.  turned away God's anger from them: and the conditional 
* Esa. 1. 1● Jer. 3. 22. Hos. 6. 1. ● 3. & 14 ● joel. 2. 13  promises of pardon if they did repent: Also Gods threatening of judgements against them if they repent not.  
And that faith was also required of them, see all these scriptures. Psal. ●8. 5. 6. 7. 22. 2 Chro. 20. 20. Esa. 53. 1. and 7. 9 Hab. 2. 4. Act. 26. 6. 7. Heb. 11. 13. 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4.  
And thus you see that that condition and obedience of the members of the new Testament, which you say, is faith and repentance, was also the condition and obedience of the members of the old Test.  
The reason of the mayor is evident etc. seeing that as the ministery, worship & government of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature, than the ministery worship and government of the new Testament is: so the condition, viz. the matter and form of the Church of the old Testament was of an other nature, than the constitution, that is, the matter and form of the new Testament, etc. Heb. 7. 16. Gal, 5. 3.  
I answer first, that it is not simply true, that the ministery & worship of the church of the old Test. is of another nature from that of the Gospel. For although in their worship and ministery were many things typical & ceremonial: yet withal God required of them spiritual worship & obedience, without which their 
“ Esa. 1. 12.- 15. G● 4. 5  ceremonial was abominable. Also, if preaching of the word and prayer etc. be of a spiritual nature, than was their ministery and worship more than carnal. The prophet 
† Esa. 56. 1●  complains of neglect of teaching in the Priests, which argueth that they were bound by their calling to instruct the people. Malachy saith 
* Mal. 2. ● 6. 7.  The Priest's lips shall preserve knowledge etc. they shall seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts: and this was by office, for the Lord saith, My covenant was with Levi of life and peace, etc. the law of truth was in his mouth. And in jeremy the Lord complains of the Priests, saying, they that should minister the law ●ow me not: promising unto the people if they repent: that he would give them “ Pastors according to his own heart, which should feed them with 
●●r. 3. 15. ●eh. 8. ● Act. 13. ●● Act. 15. ●  knowledge and understanding. And in Nehemiah it is written, that the Priests and Levites † read in the book of the law and gave the sense, and caused the people to understand the reading, and this by their office. Lev. 10. 11. The jews had the * lectures of the law and Prophets in their Synagogues. And “ Moses had them of old time in every city that did preach him.  
Thus we see that the opening of the law and preaching of the scriptures 
Lev. 9 22 ●. Num. ● 23.- 27. ●. 9 4 13 ● & 10. 1. ●●h. 8. 6. ●l. 1. 14. ● 2. 16. 17.  was a part of the ministery of the Priests and Levites, and of their public worship on the sabbath. Also the Priests † gave thanks unto God for the people, blessed them and prayed. The Temple was called the house of prayer, Math. 21. 13. also they had certain hours of meeting at the Temple, which were called hours of prayer. Act. 3. 1. And they were commanded spiritual sacrifices, as Ps. 4. 5. &. 50. 14. 15. 23. as formerly is observed.  
Concerning the government of the Church of the old Testament: which was by the Priests and Levites, Elders, I know no great difference in nature of th●t church, and of this under the Gospel.  
The former was governed ecclesiastically by the Priests & Elders: Mat. 26. 47. Luk. 22. 66, Act. 23. 14. and 6. 12. and 13. 15. & 18. 8. 2 Chro. 19 8. And so the churches of the New Testament are to be governed by the 
Mat. 18. ●5. 16. 17. ● Cor. 5. 3.- 5 ● Exo. 19, 6. ● Exod 22. ●1. Lev. 14 ●. & 11. 44 ●●d 20. 7. ● Pet. 1. 16. Rom. 11. 16 ● Deu. 4. 20 & 5. 2. Psa. ●0. 3. 4. Deu. 14. 2. Rom. 11. ●-19, 23. ● 27.  ministers and Elders. Act. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Thes. 5. 12. Hebr. 13, 8. The censures ecclesiastical under the old Testament, were admonition & casting out of the Synagogue: Lev. 19 17. Ezr. 10. 8. joh. 9 22. and 22. 42. and 16. 2. Lev. 22. 3. Num. 9 13. & 19 13. Exod. 22. 19 so are these the censures of the churches under the Gospel. Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. 5.  
Secondly, for the constitution of the Church of the old Testament, which you say, was of another nature then that of the new.  
I answer, that former church was of an heavenly constitution, a † kingdom of Priests and a “ holy nation, the people * saints, as well as the members of the church of the new Testament. And this people being separate from all other nations, & called out to be the Lords “ peculiar people were united into one body by covenant between the Lord and them: and so became the people, church and kingdom of God, as in renewing of their covenant is manifest. Deut. 29. 9-15. Exod. 14. 8. They were † natural branches of that root and olive tree wherinto we of the Gentiles are graffed grounded by faith on Christ then to come, in whom they believed, 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. their covenant leading them to Christ for salvation. Gal. 3. ●6. Luk. 1, 68-75. This old church by their constitution admitted of no profane person to be a member thereof, but such as professed holiness. They were for every transgression appointed to offer sacrifices and to con 〈…〉 their sin, Lev. 1. 2. 4. ch. & 5. 5. Num. 14. 40. & to make satisfaction to that man whom they had wronged. Num. 5. 7.  
Now let the constitution of the church under the new testament be considered and compared in the matter and form thereof, with that of the ●d, and there will be no such difference in substance between them, as you pretend, the matter of them both being holy and living stones: and the form, an holy uniting together in the covenant of God, to walk in all his commandments, else could not the Gentiles be made one body, and co●heriters with the jews, Eph. 2. 14. and 3. 6. and partakers of his promises in Christ, if the constitution of the jews church had been carnal and not spiritual.  
Therefore faith and repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament, 〈◊〉 only a carnal holiness, viz. the circumcision of the foreskin. etc.  
I have already proved, that of the Israelites God did require spiritual holiness, Lev. 11. 44. saying, I am the Lord your God be sanctified therefore and ●e holy, for I am holy. Here it is to be minded that they must be holy after God's example, who neither is carnally holy, or yet delights in carnal holiness without the spiritual. Psal. 50. 7-23. Esa, 1. 11-20. & chap. 50.  
And here M. Smyth I observe how you contradict not only the truth, but yourself: for here you affirm that the form of the Church of the old Testament was carnal their covenant carnal, & holiness carnal: yet in your 
Differenc● pag. 10.  book of Differences, you say, that the Septuagint Translation was agree 〈…〉 sin, for the covenant of Grace ought not to have been preached unto the Gentiles. So by your own confession, Israel had the covenant of grace, else could they not have profaned it by preaching of it to the Gentiles, what witch hath turned this into a carnal covenant? can not your hearers mind how unstable a leader they follow.  
Well, let us consider those Scriptures which you produce for the proving of your carnal covenant, the first is Hebr. 7. 16. To which I answer, that the Apostle, by the law of carnal commandment, intendeth not thereby to teach that the constitution of the old church was carnal, but showeth the diversity of Christ's priesthood from Aaron's, understanding by carnal commandment, those frail and transitory things, which the † law commanded 
●…. 24. 1. ●sa. 61. 1. ●. 45. 7.  in the consecration of the Levitical Priests: so called in respect of Christ his anointing, which was “ spiritual.  
Touching Gal. 5. 3. the Apostle reasoning against them that would join the works of the law with faith for justification, exhorteth the Galathians chap. 5. 1. etc. to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath mad● 
●…. 5. 3.  us free etc. testifying to every man, that if he be circumcised, he is bound to keep the whole law. Noting circumcision especially, because the false teachers did urge it by name for justification. And he reasoneth against it, not as it was in itself by the ordinance of God: but according to that opinion that his enemies had of it, which made circumcision a part of their salvation. And he that so esteems of it as a work to justify, must also (saith Paul) keep all the rest of the commandments. For the law requireth of such as seek to be justified by works and legal ordinances, the whole observation thereof, 
Deut. 27. ●6. Gal. 3. ●…. Rom. 3. 20. ●al. 2. 16. Gal. 4. 9  else doth it promise no * life. And because no man can be “ levied by the works of the law, therefore doth the Apostle reject circumcision being urged to that end, And when the ceremonies be thus used the Apostle speaketh basely of them, and calleth them † beggarly rudiments. And now if a papist or any other should contend, that a man is justified by Baptism, as by a work wrought, we might so speak to them, as the Apostle doth here to the Galathians, that if you receive baptism to be made righteous thereby, ex opere operato, you are bound to keep the whole law: for baptism being made a work to justify, is perverted.  
And that Paul meaneth by Circumcision, in this place as a work urged to justification, the very next verse, viz. ver, 4. showeth, wherein he saith, ye are abolished from Christ whosoever are justified by the law.  
And thus much for answer to your first Arg. the second followeth.  
2. The type, shadow, figure, similitude of a thing, is not the truth, the substance the thing itself: true is nature and reason. The constitution, viz. the matter & form of the Church of the old Testament is the type etc. the constitution or the matter and form of the church of the new Test. is the truth etc. Heb. 10. 1. & 9 19 23.  
I answer, first, to your Major, that one and the same thing may both be the type and the truth; for Isaac was a type of the faithful, as yourself doth affirm; yet was he also faithful, and so was both the type and the truth. Secondly to your Minor, the constitution, viz. the matter and form of the old church is not the type etc. of the church of the new Testament, in that sense as you take matter and form: for the matter of that former Ch. ●as not to be ceremonially, but truly holy, as before I have proved, and these 
† Deu. 2● 9 & 14. ● Esa. 5. 4. ● 15. & 24. 3. 4. 5. Es● 58. 2,- 7. ● 14. Deu. ● 12, 16.  scriptures quoted in the margin do further confirm. Their 
* Deu. 2● 10,- 13. “ Gal. 3. ●  co●enant was to be the Lords people, & is the same that we are entered into, else could not the “ blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles through jesus Christ that we might receive the promise through faith, if that the covenant which we receive were not the same that was made to Abraham and his seed. Also Peter affirms it to be the same, Act. 2. 39  
If then the Lord required of Israel true holiness, and made no other co●enant with them whereby he would accept them to be his people, but that everlasting covenant, and that this is the matter and form of the church of the new Testament, (true holiness of the members, and communion in the covenant and Gospel) then was not the constitution of the former Ch. a shadow of this, but even the same with the church under the new Test. I speak of the substance of this covenant, and not of the outward administration thereof, which was divers, & wherein there might be some type or shadow in the former of this latter.  
Concerning the scriptures which you quote for the proof of your Assumption, 
Heb. 10, ●  In the former, Heb. 10. 1. the Apostle showeth that the sacrifices under the law were imperfect, because they were yearly renewed; & proveth also that Christ's sacrifice is one and perpetual: & here it must be minded, that he speaketh of the administration of the old Testament differing from the new, & not to teach that the church of the jews had in regard of their constitution no spiritual promise, but only carnal & typical things. 
Heb. 9, ●● 23.  In that other scripture, Heb. 9 19 23. Paul sets down the proportion between the type and the thing typed, between the legal sacrifices and purifyings, & the purging of sin by the blood of jesus Christ, between the old Testament and the new etc., and so showing how the truth answereth unto the type, concludeth that Christ hath taken away the sins of many, by the sacrifice of himself. And this is that which the Apostle intendeth, and not to show that the constitution of the old church was the type of the constitution of the new.  
3. That which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected▪ ● produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament, was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the church of the old Test●●. justification and faith, and sanctification and repentance, were not effected, performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament. Heb, 9 9 Gal. 2. 15. 16. Ergo etc. 
Deut. 29. ●. jer. 13. ●. ● Luk. 1. ● 74. 1 pet ●●. 9 10. ●. 2. 12. ● 22. Gen. 17. 7 ●om. 4. 11 ●a. 26. & ●. Heb. 4. 2 ● 11. 30.- ●. Cor. 10. 3 ● Ezech. 18 ●. 32. joel. ● 3. ●b. 9 9 ●●. 2. 15   
The assumption is denied and the contrary is proved before: for the members of that church might have and had faith, repentance, justification & sanctification, seeing the † Lord was their God in that standing, & he is God to none but to them that are his in * Christ: & therefore it must follow, that they were partakers of faith, justification, etc. in that their communion. Again, as the covenant was given to Abraham, so was “ it to his seed: but to Abraham it was given † for justification, therefore to his seed: I mean the Israelites and people of God that were before and under the old Test. Also, I have proved * before, that God required of the Israelites, “ faith and repentance, and that they did repent & believe, & so consequently justification & sanctification were effected & accomplished in the members of that church in the communion thereof, and required in the constitution: Touching Heb. 9 9 you may be satisfied in my answer to your second Argument, yet this I will further add, that the Apostle having described the parts of the Tabernacle etc. in ver. 9 showeth the use of those things to be a figure for the present, preaching unto them spiritual things in Christ, in whom they believed the same to be fulfilled.  
And here it must be observed that these ordinances whereof the Apostle speaketh, were such as by Moses were given to that church, long after the constitution thereof.  
In that other scripture, Gal. 2. 15. 16. Paul reason's not about the constitution of the Ch. of the jews whether justification was required therein, but having to deal against the false teachers that taught, the Galathians could not be justified without the works of the law, affirmeth the contrary in these two verses, saying, we Jew's by nature know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Ch. etc. This being the purpose of the Apostle to establish justification by faith without works; doth not deny the church before the coming of Christ to be justified by faith: but teacheth that both that church, and this under the Gospel were saved not by works, but by the free promise of God in Christ received by faith. And thus you see neither of these scriptures proves your desire.  
4 That which brought not perfection and life to the members, presupposed not ●●th and repentance to the members, and so not real or true holiness: But the old Test. ●e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the church of the old Test. Heb, 7. 19 Gal. 3. 21. Erg. etc.  
First concerning the major, The old Testament though it brought not perfection, yet did it require faith in Christ to come. 2. Touching your ●inor, first I require what you mean by the old Testament, whether the books thereof or the covenant of works whereof Moses was the Mediator, if the former, then is your minor false, for those books contain as well Gospel as law, the promise made unto the fathers in Christ, to the receyving whereof was required at all times faith and repentance, aswell before Christ's incarnation as since. But i● you ●ind it 
† Rom. ● Heb. 10.  of the law only & administration of Moses, it is true, that perfection and life came not by the law, nor by the obedience or ceremonies of the law: but withal you must know that the jews were also partakers of the everlasting covenant in Christ, as 
* pa. 23. ● “ Gen. 3. ● & 12. 3. ● 17. 7. 21. Esa. 1. ● & 7. 14. ● 9 6 Gen. ● 10. Num● 24. 17. G● 3. 8. 14.  before is proved.  
3 For the church of the old Testament, it could bring or publish life to the members thereof, seeing it had the promises “ of the Gospel, and so presupposed faith, repentance & true holiness as you speak.  
To the scriptures, first to Heb. 7. 19 I answer, that the law indeed, maketh nothing perfect, nor could give life, but I have told you again and again, that the law was not that proper & only form of the jewish church, but the covenant in Christ received by Abraham.  
Concerning Gal. 3. 21. The Apostle teacheth that if the law could have given life, righteousness should have been by the law, & this who denieth: but with all you ought to observe that he saith, the law is not against the promises: & these 
† Luk. 1. 69.- 74. Rom. 9 Ephe. 2. ● & 3. 6.  promises were given to the old church: as well as the law was given, & thereby they might have & had life under the old Testament.  
5 That which was a schoolmaster only to teach Christ did not presuppose that the scholars had already learned Christ or put on Christ, which is only done by faith ●d repentance: The law or old testament was a schoolmaster only to teach Christ Gal. 3. 24. Rom. 10. 3. 4. Ergo etc.  
The major is not simply true, for a scholar may have learned somethings by his schoolmaster, and yet continue under him still to be further instructed. And so the law might lead them to Christ (law being taken in that Place for all the ordinances of Moses) and they by faith put on Christ to come.  
But I answer to the minor, That the law was a schoolmaster to teach Christ, I say it was, that they might be made righteous by faith: but can a schoolmaster teach Christ without teaching faith in Christ? & if they were taught faith, did they not learn faith? The Apostle Gal. 3. 24▪ sets down the use 
●d. 3. 24.  of the law or legal economy, 1. That the jews thereby might be kept as it were by a garrison, shut up unto the faith which after should be revealed. verse. 23. Secondly, that they might be instructed of righteousness and salvation by Christ, vers. 24. for during the legal economy their hope was nourished by the Prophets, which prophesied of Christ's coming.  
Also by the ceremonies and sacrifices they were instructed; by circumcision that Christ should be borne of the seed of Abraham, that by his death and spirit should † circumcise their hearts: by the paschal lamb they were taught 
● Col. 2. 11. ●2. ● joh. 1. 29.  that Christ as * an innocent lamb, should be slain to take away their sins: and by the other sacrifices, and sprinkling of blood, and washings; was signified the offering up of Christ to come, & the application of his death to the purging of them from all their sins, whereof they were partakers by faith. Thirdly, this Argument may thus be returned upon you: That which was a schoolmaster to teach Christ doth presuppose that the scholars should learn Christ, and put him one by faith and repentance: But the law or old Testament was a schoolmaster to teach Christ. Therefore the law or old Testament did presuppose that the scholars should learn Christ, and put him on by faith etc.  
Touching the other scripture Rom. 10. 3: 4. The Apostle there layeth out 
Rom. 10. 3. 4.  the blind zeal of the jews, that being ignorant of the righteousness of God which is by faith, sought to establish their own righteousness which is of works, and submitted not to the righteousness of God, this he reproves in them: and then vers. 4. sets down the reason of their ignorance of the righteousness of faith, because they did despise the end of the law which is Christ, so called, because the 
* Mat. 5. ●7. Col 2. ●4. Mat. 3 ●5. 1 Pet. 2 ●2. Heb. 7. 26. 27. Gal. ●. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 19: 22. 23. 'tis 3. 5. joh. 3. 5.  law is fulfilled only in him.  
Thus you may see the Apostle speaks not against the constitution of that former church, but against the corruption of some members of the same.  
6. That which was hidden, & kept secret was a mystery and not reveyled, the members of the old testament in their constitution were not endued withal. faith or obedience to the Gospel was a mystery and not reveyled, but kept secret from the begin 〈…〉 g. Gal. 3. 23. Rom. 16. 25. Ergo etc.  
There is a fallacy in your setting down of this word Faith, you conclude 
Gal. 2. 23.  that which is not in the propositions, or else your Argument is not to the purpose. For Faith, in the second proposition according to the meaning of the Apostle. Gal. 3. 23. which you city for proof thereof, is not put for the gift of faith, which is given to all true believers whereby they are justified, as in Gal. 2. 16. 20. and 3, 6. 8, 9, 11, 12, 14. but for the things believed, or fulfilling of the promises of God: for in the time of the law was saith, else the former church could not have been saved, seeing the prophet saith, 
† Hab. 2. ●  the just shall live by faith, & the Gospel was preached to them, (without 
* Rom. 10▪ 14-17.  which they could not believe,) yea to 
“ Gal. 3. 8.  Abraham. And though the things promised were not fulfilled during the time of the old Testament: yet had had Jews 
† Heb. 11. 33. 1 Cor. 4.  faith in Christ promised, and thereby were saved.  
If you reply, that the church of the old Testamant was not endued with faith in her constitution. I answer, that there can be no church to God 
* Ephes. 2. 20-22. 12▪ 19 Lev. 2● 12. 2 Cor. 6● 16.  founded without the everlasting covenant in Christ, by 
“ Gen. 1●. 7.  which Abraham & his seed became the people of God, and therefore endued with faith in their constitution.  
Concerning, Rom. 16. 25. By mystery, the Apostle meaneth the calling 
Rom. 16. ●●  of the Gentiles which now is opened and published among all nations. And if it be understood of the Gospel or preaching of Christ, as some do, yet was it called a mystery: partly in respect of the nations to whom it was not reveyled before the coming of Christ, as ver. 26. Also to the jews, in respect of 
† 1 Pet 1. 10-12. Luk. 10. 24.  the things promised; but the promise of salvation was preached to Adam, to Abraham, and to the whole church, and was no mystery kept secret from the beginning of the world, but in all times and ages revealed to the Lords people, and by them received  
7. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ: There is condemnation to them that are under the law, for it is the ministery of death or condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 7. Ergo, the law or old Testament doth not presuppose Christ, or they that are under the law are not in Christ, and so the members of the church of the old testament: are not truly holy.  
Surely this reasoning of yours makes me doubt, that you reason against your own knowledge, for how can you be ignorant that the church of the jews was not under the law as it is the ministery of death, I mean in respect of their constitution? There is indeed condemnation to them that are under the law, that is, which by the works thereof † seek justification; 
●l. 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. ●or. 3. 7.  and so were some members of the old church under the law, as the Pharisees that * sought to justify themselves, as now they are that do the like: but to hold, that the whole church was under condemnation, & without faith in Christ, is an error to be abhorred.  
That scripture, 2 Cor. 3. 7. intendeth no such thing: for the Apostle speaking of the ministration of death, compareth the ministery of the Gospel with the ministery of the law, showing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that continued not in all things to fulfil it: then much more the ministration of righteousness shall exceed in glory, which bringeth salvation to them that believe. This is the meaning of the Apost: and not to show that Israel was under condemnation, seeing they were partakers of the covenant in Christ. And as they, so we under the Gospel have the law to accuse & condemn us, if we transgress it, but as we through repentance and faith in Christ are freed from the curse of the law; so were the jews also. Now the law is the ministration of death not to the chur▪ either before or since Christ, but to the “ faithless and disobedient both 
●s 1 Tim. 1. ●. 10.  under the old Testament and under the Gospel.  
Finally (you say) the whole disputation of Paul to the Romans and Galathians concerning justification by faith in Christ without works of the law doth evidently confirm this excellent truth, teaching that the utmost obedience of the law did not effect justification. Therefore the law or old Testament did not presuppose it.  
That excellent truth which you labour to confirm by the disputation of Paul concerning justification, is a notable error. For where Paul reasoneth against such as maintained justification by the works of the law, he doth not teach thereby that the old Testament did not presuppose true holiness, for albeit some of the jews fell into this error, to hold justification by works of the law, yet did the church look unto Christ for justification then, as well as now. And though the utmost obedience of the law could not effect justification, yet faith in Christ could effect it, which I have proved that the old church had, in that they had the pomise of salvation in Christ.  
For it had been vanity to have given a law which should not or could ●ot preserve and produce that which was in them in their first constitution: wherefore I do defend against all men that the church of the old Testament i● the matter or constitution of it, was not really holy, but only typically etc.  
I have showed already that the law was given to the old Church to teach them holiness, not to make them holy, and so it did produce or effect that wherefore it was given, and therefore your bold defence against all men, that the constitution of the church of the old Testament was not really holy but typically; hath in it more boldness than truth: the contrary is proved 
† pag. 23. etc.  before. And therefore your inference is false, fiz. that the members thereof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or in possession of that everlasting covenant. etc. but only under the offer of it in that typical testament given to Abraham, and afterward assumed written & amplified by Moses. joh. 7. 19-23. with Heb. 8. 8. 9  
That the everlasting covenant was given to Abraham and his seed, see pag. 20. etc. concerning these scriptures; in the former, Christ charging 
john. 7. 19-23.  the jews with breach of the law who were angry against him for making a man whole on the sabbath day, proveth his fact lawful from their own practice, reasoning thus, if you may circumcise on the Sabbath and not break the law, then why may not I as lawfully heal a man: this is that Ch. intendeth. now because it is said ver. 22. that Moses gave them circumcision, etc. it seems you would gather withal that the ordinances of Moses or old Test. were given, first to Abraham, and afterward assumed & written by Moses, but tha● cannot be proved by this place: For circumcision was a sign of the promise in Christ, not of the law, as before is proved.  
In that of Hebr. 8. 8. 9 the Apostle showeth that Christ is the 
Heb. 8. 8.  Mediator of a better covenant than were the Levitical Priests, and there fore his ministery more excellent than theirs: this first he proveth, because this covenant was established upon better promises, and then he showeth the excellency of it compared with the former: And that God made it with his people he proves by the Testimony of jeremy. Now concerning the first Testam. it was made with the church, when the Lord gave his law in Sinai & the people did covenant with him, saying, All that the Lord hath commanded we will do, of Abraham we do not find that he did promise the keeping of the law under the curse, as Israel did, Deut. 27. 26. and therefore the law, the covenant of works or old Testament, was not first made with him, and after examplified by Moses, but 
●xo. 19 5 & 24. 3. Lev. 34. ● D●u. 5. ●. Heb. 9 ●. 23.  it was † made with Israel: as further also may be showed by the description thereof, in Heb. 9 1-10. which can not be referred to Abraham's tyme.  
Again, the Apostle * saith, when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats and sprinkled all the people, saying, this is the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed unto you etc. Also the confirmation of this Testament was by the ministery of Moses. And Paul saith, that the law was 430. years after the covenant that was confirmed afore of God to Abraham, & his seed in respect of Christ: Now if the law had been given to Abraham, the Apostles Argument taken from the distance of time had been of no force. And thus much for answer to your Argumenrs.  
Next follows your answer to my objections, wherein still you affirm, That the nation of the jews was not truly holy, but tipically, & that their holiness was this, that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted, they were trained or schooled to Christ, etc.  
What is here said, is answered elsewhere, & here I deny that the jews holiness was only typical, though I deny not that they were by types and ceremonies lead unto true holiness in Christ, whereof also they were partakers by the covenant of grace.  
Concerning Exod. 19 6. alleged to prove that Israel was called a holy 
●od, 19 6  people, you answer thus: I say that either the meaning is, that they were typically holy treaned up to holiness, or that they by attaining the end of the law should attain true holiness in Christ: so that this place is nothing to your purpose of the holiness of the eternal covenant, which God made with Abraham.  
It seems you are not fully resolved of the meaning of this scripture. Ex. 19 6. ye shall be to me a kingdom of priests & a holy nation. This being minded 
Exo. 20. 1. etc. Deut. ●3. 8. 1 Pet. 1. 5  of the people or nation they could not be called a kingdom of Priests in respect of a typical priesthood which was proper to † Aaron and his sons, but in respect of their spiritual priesthood in Christ as the Apostle saith, * ye are made a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, which place doth well expound this of Exodus 19 6. that the Lord doth intend to call them holy in regard that he had chosen them for himself, and had received them into his covenant to be his people. For to be priests to offer up spiritual sacrifices, must needs be in Christ. therefore truly holy.  
Again you say, that they by attaining the end of the law should attain true holiness in Christ, which if you grant, then must this holiness be in respect of the eternal covenant, out of which neither Christ nor true holiness can be attained unto.  
Thirdly, ceremonial holiness without true holiness the 
† Esa. 1. 11-16. Ps● 50. 16. 17.  Lord regards not: it were to approve of hypocrisy, which he hateth: & therefore in that they are called holy it must be understood of true holiness as also, Deut. 7. 6. & 14. 2. Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 11. 44. & 19 2. And thus you see this place is to my purpose, unless you can show me that a people can attain Christ and true holiness and be without the covenant of grace.  
So that infants though they be under the offer of the covenant made with Abrah. i● respect of Christ, yet shall not baptism be administered upon them, because that in the old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually seized upon the external covenant: & therefore none in the new Testament shall be baptized but those that ●e actually possessed of the covenant of the new Testament.  
First it is proved 
* pa. 12. 13.  before, that circumcision was a seal of the covenant of salvation. Secondly, you are to explayn what you mean, by actually seized upon the external covenant: for actual possession of Canaan, the Israelites had not of a long time after Abraham's death, otherwise then by faith, whereof you say, Infants are not capable. If children were circumcised, & were neigh there seized upon Canaan by possessing it, nor by actual faith, how were they seized upon the external covenant? The law was not then given, what were they seized on, and how?  
Thirdly, the Infants of believers under the Gospel are 
“ Act. 2. 39 1 Cor. 7. 14.  possessed of the covenant of grace, by the virtue of the free giving thereof to the faithful and their seed, therefore to be baptized.  
Fourthly, If Infants be but only under the offer of the covenant, than they dying in their infancy are without the covenant of salvation, and so perish, so far as we can judge: for to be under the offer only, you will not say that thereby they can be saved. Again, if they be not in Christ and so within the covenant, they are under condemnation. Rom. 8. 1.  
But actual possession (you say) is by obedience to the faith. This is true beingrightly applied: But you must know that there is a general giving and applying of the promise on God's part to his people, and there is a more special and particular applying of the same, by the ministery of the word and spirit: The former was to Abraham when God made his † covenant with 
Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39 Rom. 4. ●. 12.  him and his seed: The other is to all that receive the word & keep it whereof Luk. 11. 28. Act. 2. 21. jam. 1. 21. This actual possession (to use your phrase) belongs to such as by their years are capable to understand, and it is a continual applying of that which was given in general to the faithful and their seed. And of such are those places of Rom. 10. 17. Gal. 3. 2. 14. to be understood. And this the Lord requires according to the dispensation 
Mat. 13. ●4. 11. Heb. 4. 2. Rev. 2. 7. ● Rom. 11. ●8. ● Rom. 10. 14-17. 21.  of the covenant, both under the old and new Testament, that all they that are his people capable of understanding should † hear his word and yield obedience to the faith. For although God love the children for the “ father's sake; & respect his promise, yet will he have them as they come to years, to practise faith and obedience, unto which end the † preaching of the word is given unto us.  
Secondly, I answer concerning the consequent of your majors consequent, that it shall not follow, that because children are under the covenant, that therefore they shall have the outward sign and seal thereof, for under the law the females were actually under the covenant of the old Testament, yet were not signed with the seal. And before the law was given, all that were actually under the covenant until the time of Abraham had no external sign or seal thereof.  
It must follow, that if children be under the covenant that they must hav● the outward sign or seal, because the † Lord hath so commanded, joining 
Gen. 17. ●-11. Mat. 28. 19 * Mat. 19 ●6. “ Gen. 34. 24.  the seal to his covenant which man may not * separate. For your reasons to the contrary, they are of no weight. First concerning the females under the law, though they were not circumcised, yet were “ they accounted of the circumcised. And for the ceremony itself they were never capable of it young nor old, the like you will not say of children under the Gossip. 2. For the fathers before the institution of circumcision, they might be under the covenant & without the seal, because the L. did so dispense with those times: but you must prove that the state of children under the new Test. is alike to the condition of those fathers before Abr. or of the women under the law, & then will it follow that they shall not be sealed at all, for these that you instance were not. It is one thing when God hath commanded the sign and adjoined it to his covenant to be received: & another when he commanded no such thing. They are to receive the seal, to whom the covenant with the seal is given; as it was to Abraham and now is unto us. And therefore the sign may not be denied to whom the covenant belongs. But to infringe this truth you say, The Lord in choosing the male only to be circumcised, thereby purposed to teach in a type, that only the male, (that is one that is in Christ) should be sealed with the spirit of promise under the new Testament.  
That circumcision so signifieth as you set down, you are to prove, in that it was set upon the male, it did type out Christ, that promised seed through whom our corruption is purged, as before is observed. And if circumcision be such a type, (as you here affirm) how can you exclude children under the new Test? they are Christ's and in the covenant, 
† Rom. 8. Tit. 3. 5. 7.  capable of the spirit or new birth, & therefore to be sealed.  
If it be objected that before the law there was no seal appointed, I say, hereby it appeareth that to be under the covenant was not the cause of ●ytle to the seal: but the express commandment of God. etc.  
But to be under the covenant after the seal was thereunto annexed is sufficient cause of title to the seal, except you will disjoin those things that God hath coupled together:  
In the next place you answer to the Assumption of my Argument where first you desire of me to expound unto you what is this holiness which the Apostle mentioneth, 1 Cor. 7. 14. If I say under the covenant, than you demand what it is to be under the covenant, and so you proceed from question to question, as if you could not find out a direct answer without such interrogatories.  
To your first demand, I answered before & showed that this holiness in 1 Cor. 7. 14: is in respect of the covenant, that children of the believing fathers are called holy, by the Apost. Then what it is to be under the covenant, happily you will say, to be justified by the imputation of the righteousness of C. righteousness.  
Although thus to answer be true, yet is it not all that we are to answer to this demand. For to be under the covenant is to be considered 2. manner of ways. 1. according to the L. solemn dispensation of his covenant with his people, & their admittance thereinto, after which manner it was made with Abraham and his seed. And thus the covenant was established to 
* Gen, 17. 21. Act. 39 Deu● 15.  them that were unborn at the time of the promise making, being then in the loins of Abraham. Secondly men are said to be under the covenant after a more special and hidden manner. And so all the elect whether known by the confession of their faith, or lying hidden 
〈◊〉 ●om. 4. 4. ●at. 8. 12. ●zo. 14. 6. Rom. 11. ●-2●. Esa. 29. 13 Luk. 13. ●-27. ●at. 8. 12.  in the confused assemblies of the world, are within the cov. of salvation, but after this hidden manner we cannot judge who is within, who is without, some we may judge to be within, in respect of their outward standing, which in the Lord's sight are without, and some without whom the Lord accepteth: but after that external and solemn making and receiving of the covenant of life, we are to repute † all that makes profession of their faith, with their seed to be under the covenant, and * branches of the olive tree until they fall away. And of these that are thus under the covenant, there be many “ hypocrites which are not partakers of salvation in Christ.  
Then I demand which of these three, viz. to be holy, to be under the covenant, to have Christ's righteousness imputed, is first in nature: happily you will say, first they are under the covenant, secondly, justified, 3. sanctified or holy.  
I perceive you would draw us by your supposed answer, from that general holiness appertaining to the whole church of God, by reason of the covenant of salvation made with them, to the sincere holiness of particular persons, which is not found to be in all that are visible members of the ch. 
Heb. 4. 1. ●. Rom. 11. ●0.  For this we say, that a people that are entered covenant with God, are in regard thereof, holy; because they are separate from the world unto God, and so are to be esteemed of us, as they to whom is promised Christ with all his blessings, whereof they are partakers, if by † unbelief they hinder not themselves of that holiness of the olive whereinto they were planted, & in this sense are we to understand that place of the Apostle. 1 Cor. 7. 14.  
Then I proceed and demand, when do Infants come under the covenant, when they are conceyved or when they are born, or when the parents are converted being born already. It will be answered that Infants begotten of faithful parents come under the covenant in their conception, and such as are borne come under the covenant when their parents are regenerate. Hereby it appeareth, that the covenant is conveyed to the children by generation & by filial relation.  
Thus I answer as formerly I have done, that the covenant belongs to the parents and their seed, through the free grace & gift of God, the Lord binding himself by promise to be God to the faithful and to their children, which though they be borne according to the course of nature & are in the covenant, yet is their so being within it, not by virtue of their carnal birth simply considered; but by virtue of God's promise. Indeed this we say, to be borne of believing parents is a declaration of the children's being in God's covenant, & that they come under the covenant when their 
“ Act. ● 14. 15. 33●  parents do * first believe, whether they be borne already, or to be borne: I mean such parents as were before strangers to the covenant.  
Hereunto add, if it be true that some say, that children under the government of the faithful also are under the covenant, that the covenant is conveyed also, by pupilship ● adoption, & so of servants under believing masters etc.  
God making his covenant with believers, includeth their families, as in Gen. 17. 7. with verse 9,- 13. where the Lord establishing his covenant with Abraham, included his whole household, borne in his house or bought with money; for he commanded all to be circumcised. So Zacheus manifesting his faith and repentance, Christ said, 
† Luk. 1● 8. 9  this day is salvation come unto this house: see also Act. 16. 30, 31, 33. and jer. 31. 1. And thus do we affirm hereof, according to the scriptures. You say,  
Why may not at the infants borne under one king, if his subjects be all his servants ●d vassals be by that relation brought under the covenant, and so be accounted justified and sanctified.  
God hath established his covenant to the believers and their seed, not to a king and his subjects, and therefore this relation will not stand with the condition of the covenant.  
The relation of a King and a subject is as near as the relation of a master and a servant or an adopted child.  
The relation of a king and subjects, be it never so near, maketh not t● the purpose: seeing we are to mind with whom God maketh his covenant, who tieth not himself to civil relations, but freely accepteth the believer and his family, and further than this relation, the scripture doth not warrant us to apply God's covenant.  
And then I demand (say you) seeing the relation of a man and wife is nearer a great deal, than any relation of adoption or servitude, why the wife shall not be under the covenant for the relation of marriage? happily it will be said, that the wife being of years cannot be admitted because of her unbelief, and I say that infants cannot be admitted because of their want of faith.  
It is true that neither the wife nor servants if they refuse, can be admitted because of their unbelief, but the case is not alike of men and women grown to years, as of infants borne in the church, the former either consent or refuse actually, infants do not refuse, and therefore being the seed of the faithful are to be admitted to Baptism.  
But it will be said, that the covenant with Abraham was with him and his seed only, I say, it was made (by your confession) with him and his adopted infants▪ etc.  
We say as the scripture teacheth us, that the everlasting covenant was made with Abraham and his seed, the faithful & their children: Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39 and that the Lord intended thereby, the whole family of the faithful, if they refused nor, as before is proved.  
And seeing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant, and those that are further off, why shall not these that are nearer as his wife?  
I have answered before, her unbelief hinders her, to be one flesh, makes them not one in the covenant, which is by grace not by marriage.  
But you will say, because infants do not refuse the covenant, they may be admitted to baptism, etc. but wives refusing, may not. I further insist, that as infants do not resist, so they do not consent, and that all the children, servants and wives, that do not resist may be admitted, though they cannot make declaration of their faith. etc. etc.  
We do not make the infants not refusing, the cause of their acceptance to the seal of the covenant; but the Lords dispensation and commandment: in children there can be neither actual consent or resisting, the one of which 
Hub. 2. 4. Gal. 2. 20. Rom. 10. 9 Mat. 3, 1. ●am, 2. 18. ●2. 24.  is found to be in them that are of years: who also are to † live by their own faith: also * confession is of such required, so is it not of infants.  
Then I say there is no reason why faith and repentance should be required of one to make him capable of the covenant of justification etc. more than of an other, except God be an accepter of persons.  
To this I have answered before, and again do answer, that there is one and the same way of entering into God's covenant for Abraham and for all other believers, they receiving the covenant after the same manner that he did, believing that God is their God and the God of their seed. Also faith and repentance, is required not only of such as are of years, and to enter into the Lord's covenant, but of all that are in the covenant, (they being the condition thereof on our part▪ to be performed) continually: and therefore we must know, that it is Gods good pleasure that makes men capable of the promise, and not any act of theirs: faith receiveth grace, but causeth it not, and repentance is the fruit thereof, required of every one, as they are of understanding.  
And further, the covenant is only with Abraham and his seed, not with adopted children etc. and therefore faith and repentance must necessarily be had, and so ●y cannot be baptized till they show their faith. etc.  
I have proved already, that God in saying, I will establish my covenant be●en me and thee and thy seed, included Abraham's family; or else show unto ●e, wherefore they were with him partakers of circumcision, if they ●ere not with him in the covenant. Again, faith and repentance is required of the elder sort, not of infants, Ergo etc. As for partaking of the covenant actually, how children are thereof capable, I have proved oft enough: and therefore it needs no further answer.  
And whereas it may be justly objected against you: that if infants be denied to be within the covenant, they cannot be saved, you labour to remove this exception, saying: we pronounce nothing of infants dying before they be ●verted, but leave the secret of them to the Lord  
Thus you leave a starting hole hereafter to determine as it will prove with or against your opinions: is the condition of infants such a secret that God hath not manifested his will concerning them? Was not Abraham to take notice of the state of his infants, when he was to circumcise them? Gen. 17. 12.  
And doth not 
† Mar. 10. 14.  Christ his receiving of little children and blessing them, manifest unto us, how we ought to account of the infants of believers? The prophet Malachy saith, 
* Mal. 2. 1.  did not he make one, seeking a seed of God? Act. 2. 39 the promise is to children, as Peter there witnesseth, and jer. 31, 1. God promiseth to be the God of all the families of Israel, and children are a part of the family, 1 Cor. 7. 14. the children of the believers are called holy. Now if God had given you eyes, these scriptures 
† Gen. 17 etc. Deu● 29. 10.- 15.  might teach you that the state of the children of the faithful is no such secret as you pretend. Moses showed the state of children under the old T. & you say, 
“ Character, pag. 6. 3.  the new Testament is as sufficient for direction of all affairs etc. as the old. How is it then that the state of children is now more secret then, formerly it was? Thus you might see your speeches contradictory, if your right eye were not blinded.  
Secondly, I desire you to prove unto me by scripture, that in this place, 1 Cor. 7. 14. holiness signifieth true sanctification. etc.  
And I desire you to prove unto me, that this or that member of a visible church is truly sanctified? you keep not to the state of the question, that place is to be understood of the general holiness pertaining to the ● & every member thereof in respect of the covenant, & your demand is of Exod. 19 6. is before expounded, and is to be understood of the general face of that church, which was called holy, because the Lord had received them by covenant to be his peculiar people. in Exod. 32. 9 & 33. 3. the Lord calls them a stiff-necked people, in regard of personal sins, which he found to be in some of them, not in all, the which did argue a breach of covenant on their part, whereof they repenting, the Lord forgave them. The personal sins of some members do not dispossess the face of the church of holiness, ●he labouring to reform such faulty members. Concerning the holiness of children, & of the unbelieving wife, before is showed.  
Finally, you say, God hath said to all the faithful, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. I deny it utterly, God said that only to Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. and whether you expound it literally or spiritually, I avouch confidently against you and all men, that the meaning of it is not, that God made his covenant with the faithful man or faithful woman, and their infoo●●s begotten of their bodies: but that literally the meaning is, I will be God unto thee Abraham, and thy seed according to the flesh, to give them the land of Canaan, Gen. 17. 8. and spiritually the meaning is, I will give unto Abraham the father of the faithful and all that are his spiritual seed, everlasting life.  
You deny a manifest truth, as it is your manner to establish your heresies. I have proved already that the spiritual covenant is given to the faithful and their seed, as it was to Abraham and his seed, and further confirm it thus. 1. That promise that was made to Abraham † is the same that belongs 
Gal. 3. 14.  to all the faithful, and therefore as God did apply it to Abraham, saying▪ I will be thy God and the God of thy seed: so is it to be applied to every believer: as Gen. 17. 19 God speaking of Isaac said of him, as before of Abraham that he would establish his covenant with him and with his seed. And Act. 2. 39 the same promise was applied to the jews that were present 
Ex. 39 45 ●ev. 26. 12 Deut. 29. ●.▪ 15. Jer. ●1. 1. 33. Ps. 44. 15. Hos ●. 10. & 2. ●3. Heb. 8. ●- 10. 2 Cor. ● 16. Rev. ●1. 3. Gen. ●2. 3.  at Peter's preaching, and to their children, and this application are the words following to have. (And to as many as the Lord God shall call,) viz. to so many, and their seed. Secondly, if the covenant was not made to the faithful and their seed, then are not the faithful partakers of the same covenant with Abraham, for it was to Abraham and his seed, and so by your▪ doctrine we have not the same covenant and gospel that was preached to Abraham, and consequently no promise of salvation. Thirdly, that this promise, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, is made to all the faithful and their seed. see these † scriptures quoted in the margin. Lastly the applying of this promise to Abraham and his seed, doth teach us so to apply it to every faithful man and his seed: the Apostle thus applies the like promise in Heb. 13. 5. for comfort to all the faithful, that God in particular had made to joshuah▪ in josh▪ 1. 5. which was this, I will not leave▪ thou nor forsake thee. And David did so apply it to himself. Psalm. 118. 6. whose examples teaches how to apply God's promises.  
Concerning your exposition of this promise, I will be thy God etc. applying it only to Abraham, you pervert thereby the Lords meaning: he made his everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed, Gen▪ 17. ●7. promised also unto him and his seed the land of Canaan, Genes. 17. 8. adjoining this promise of Canaan, to that everlasting covenant, with this copulative (and). the everlasting covenant being common to Abraham, with all the faithful and their seed: but this promise of Canaan proper to such of his seed, as according to the course of nature should proceed out of his loins, and therefore it cannot be, that this covenant and the promise of Canaan should be one and the same, as you expound it. Besides God made this promise to Abraham concerning Canaan and confirmed the same unto him. Gen. 15. 7.- 18. therteen years at the least before circumcision was commanded. Gen. 15. 14. and 16. 2. 3. 4. 16. compared with Gen. 17. 1. 10. 23-26. and that solemn establishing of that everlasting covenant with Abraham: Gen. 17. 7. at which time indeed this promise of Canaan was again renewed. Also it is further to be noted, that Canaan was to Abraham and his seed a type, and as it were a sacrament of the promise of the heavenly country, which they sought after: Heb. 4. 8.- 11. and 11. 9 10. 13.- 16. 39 for else had their possessing of it made them in no better estate than the Canaanites before them, nay not in so good an estate as divers other peoples, which enjoyed their countries more quietly, than they did Canaan.  
And show me (say you) that God said to every faithful man and woman etc. that he will be God unto them and their seed. I have showed it before, that so▪ the promise is to be applied, & so did Lydia & the gaylor apply it, as by the sealing of their families with baptism together with themselves appeareth. And concerning women the Apostle saith, in Ch. 
* Gal. 3. 2●  ye are all one, there is neither▪ jew nor Grecian, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, whereby▪ it appears that God in giving his cov hath no respect of sex, be they male or female, all is one in C. & therefore P. administered the seal to Lydia, being a woman & to her family, as well as to Stephanus & the gaylor. You say, It is false doctrine to say that the covenant doth pass unto the infants of the faithful because of their father's faith etc. How the covenant passeth to the infants of the faithful by the free gift of God is showed before: pag. 77. one man's faith cannot convey the covenant of justification to another, nor one 〈◊〉 sin cut off another from the covenant, but the soul that sinneth shall die.  
Although that one man's faith cannot by any natural operation or quality (as a medicine doth health to the body) convey the covenant to an other, nor actually apply justification to the soul of an other in that sense▪ as the Apostle speaketh thereof Gal. 2. 20. yet according to the Lords dispensation of his covenant, the promise is received by the faith of the Parents to themselves and their seed, as it was by Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. 23. Heb. 11. 17. Rom. 4. 11. And this would be no mystery unto you, if you did distinguish between the outward manner of God's dispensation of his covenant (under which all the faithful and their seed are comprehended and accounted God's people) and the inward and hidden application of the things promised, whereof none young nor old are partakers, save † the 
Mat. 3, 11▪ ●●. 3. 5. 7. 8 ●●. 11. 7.  elect, no not the aged, though they be held for saints in the sight of men.  
As for one man's sin to cut off another, we hold it not in that sense as you mean, yet in some sense it is not altogether untrue; for did not such of Corahs' children as departed not from their father's sin perish with him, Numb. 16. 27.- 32.? and God saith I will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children of them that hate him, in justice withdrawing his grace from the seed of the wicked: but that the personal sin of one shall cut off an other, as the prophet meaneth Ezec. 18. 20. we defend it not.  
Neither will it avail to plead that the covenant made with Abraham, was an everlasting covenant, for berith gnolam in the original, doth not import a covenant of everlasting continuance, but a covenant that continueth his proper tyme. etc.  
I answer it doth import a covenant of everlasting continuance and so doth gnolam an everlasting time, as in these places: Psal. 136. 1. Eccl. 12. 5. Psal. 145. 13. Esa. 45. 17. and so in divers other places. Also the Lord in Gen. 17. 7. speaketh of that thing which is everlasting vid to be God to Abraham and his seed after him, and therefore gnolam must needs be understood for ever, unless you will say that God was God to Abraham and his seed but for a tym●, for that is the covenant which there he calleth everlasting. And Christ proveth the resurrection from these words, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham▪ etc. Exod. 3. 6. Ergo the covenant made with Abraham is an everlasting covenant. And though gnolam do sometimes signify a time that hath an end, as it doth in the type, ●t it noteth time everlasting in the truth of those types, and therefore ●s Canaan called an everlasting possession. Gen. 17. 8.  
But be it granted (say you) that the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. ● the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, what then? ● it follow because it was with Abraham and the faithful, whether Jews or Gen● believing actually, as Abraham the father did, therefore it is made with the faith●●an, etc. and with his children begotten of his body, etc. I deny it utterly.  
Yes, it 
† Act. 2. 3●  will and must follow, else are not the faithful partakers of Abra●ms covenant, for if Ahraham have it to him and his seed, and the belee●ers only to themselves, then is it not the same neither in the giving nor ●●iving thereof, as before is proved. And if you grant Abraham's in●●s, as Isaac etc. were to be esteemed his seed in respect of the covenant ●ade with him in Christ (for to deny it by any colour of scripture you ●an not) than must the same account be made of all other infants of belee●ers, seeing the faithful are to apply the covenant to them and their seed, ●● the same faith that Abraham did to him and his.  
Because the seed is but one, to whom the promises were made, viz. Christ, or the 〈…〉 all believers.  
The words of the Apostle are these, 
* Gal. 3. 1●.  but to thy seed, as of one, which is Christ. Some understand by seed, the church, Christ mystically, as 1 Cor. 12. 12. gathered of jews and Gentiles, which grow together in one body in Christ, of the seed of Abraham, as ver. 18. According to which exposition both ●ong and old members of the church are understood to have the promise ●ade unto them that are partakers of salvation, yea infants, else are 
* Eph. 5. 2● 26.  they ●ot sanctified by Christ's death. But if by seed, be understood the redeeming ●eed, which is C. it is he in whom both the elder people & infants are blessed.  
But you to prove that by one, only actual believers is to be minded, ●edge Eph. 3. 17. where it is to be noted, that Paul intends not to show ●hat none are in Christ, save only actual believers, (for that were to con●mne all infants) but he speaking to the church, and such of them as were ●apable of instruction, and having exhorted them not to faint because of ●is troubles, prayeth the Lord, that they may be strengthened with his spirit, that Christ may dwell in their hearts by faith, that is bring forth the fruits of the spirit, testifiing their faith, and so continue constant. Now it is to be observed, that 
Rom. 8. 9 11 ● Joh. 3. 24.  Christ dwelleth in all his, by his spirit, and thereby joineth them unto him, and so in infants, else are they 
† Rom. 8. 9  not Christ's, & this should you have minded as well as the other, and have known, that actual believing and the practice of other Christian duties, is the work of the spirit, as the act of reasoning is of the soul, in the elder sort, required of them, and not of infants, as oft enough hath been showed. But not minding the true meaning of the Apostle, you thus object.  
1. If the covenant be made with the faithful who actually believe as one seed, & the infants of the faithfuul carnally begotten, which is an other seed, etc. then the covenant is made with the seeds which are many, and that is directly against the Apastle, Gal. 3. 16.  
I answer, that the covenant is made with the faithful, and their seed as of one kind, God of his free grace estating the believers and their seed in one and the same covenant of life, both of them becoming * spiritual or 
Rom. 7. 4. ●ct. 2. 39 czech 16. ●. 21. ●sal. 2. 15 Gal. 3. 28. ●phe. 2. 14 ●  holy seed, and sons of God, by virtue thereof: and not two contrary seeds, as you would pretend: and therefore the Apostle is not contrary to that we affirm, for as he saith, the seed is one; so say we, whether, Christ our Saviour be thereby understood, or the Churches united into † one, or all believers, who together with their children are after a spiritual manner the sons of God.  
Therefore that one seed is of persons actually believing, etc. Rom. 4. 11. whence this Argument may be framed, Abraham is father of all them that believe actually: infants do not believe actually: Ergo, etc.  
Your conclusion ariseth from false premises, which are answered before; to the former Proposition of this argument, I answer, that Abraham is called the father of all that believe, but in no place of the scripture is added, of them only that actually believe, which you do insinuate, & therefore there lieth deceit in your proposition. God promised his blessing to Abraham's seed, which comprehends his infants “ & to bless the house of Israel & not only the elder sort. That promise of blessing the families, Gen. 12. 3. & 28. 
Ps. 115. ●2.  14. Act. 31. 25. Esa. 49. 22. jer. 31. 1. includeth children, for they are of the family.  
Again, Abraham's covenant was only to Abraham's one seed, that is to all believers: Infants do not actually believe, Ergo, etc.  
This Argument is the same in effect with the former, the mayor in your understanding is false: the faithful and their children in respect of the covenant, are but of one seed. Children though they cannot actually believe, yet are they accounted of the believers, and partakers of the promise with their parents.  
Again, They that are the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham: Infants cannot do the works of Abraham, Ergo, etc.  
The Proposition is false in your understanding, Paul saith, if any would; not ●●k he should not eat, 2 Thes. 3. 10. intendeth not this against children no ●ore doth our Saviour Christ, when he saith, if you were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. joh. 8. 39 but both places are to ●e understood of such as be of years, not of infants, which are not come ●o that strength to work good or evil.  
Again, I reason thus, They that are not under the everlasting covenant made ●●th Abraham shall not be baptized: infants are not under the everlasting covenant ● Abraham, Ergo, etc.  
The minor is false: Infants are under the everlasting covenant, as be●ore is proved, and therefore to be baptized. This your reason implies ●e condemnation of infants, for if they be not under the covenant of Abraham, there is for them no promise of salvation.   

Argument V.  
1. Cor. 10. 1. 2. If the infants of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud and in the sea as well as their parents, what letteth the infants of believing parents under the Gospel to be likewise partakers of baptism as well as they?  
The former the Apostle affirms 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. and therefore good warrant must be showed that our infants are cut off from this privilege that the jews children had. And if the former baptism of the jews was a type of our baptism, them must there be an agreement between the type and the thing typed, which is not, if our children be not baptized aswell as theirs.  
The depriving of our children of the Sacrament, is to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people of the new Testament; that being denied to their children which God gave to his people and to their infants under the law, is to ●eny them (in regard of their seed,) the like assurance and comfort which the Israelites had of theirs. And so to make our estate worse and more uncomfortable than theirs was. And yet the Prophets prophesied of the grace that should come to us, and did inquire & search after the same, 1 Pet. 1. 10.  
Glad tidings were preached to Abraham and his seed, to infants of eight days old. Gal. 3. 8. And this before Christ came in the flesh, and therefore much more he being come, is joyful tidings, brought unto us & our infants. And so are we to believe that the grace of God is not lessened either towards us or our children, but enlarged by his coming.  M. Smyth. 
To this Argument I make answer, by framing the like Argument. If their infants did eat the same spiritual meat and drink, which the parents eat: then why may not our infants being able to eat and drink, eat & drink the Lords Supper, the former the Apostle affirmeth 1 Cor. 1. 2. Therefore good warrant must be showed that our infants are cut off from that privilege etc.  R. Clyfton. 
This is not to answer the Arg, for first our infants must come to such ability as that they can 
* 1 Cor. 11. ●6. 25. 28. ●9.  show forth the Lords death; do it in remembrance of him: and can examine themselves and discern the Lords body. before they receive the Lords Supper, which conditions were not required of all that did eat Man, and drink of the rock.  
2. The proportion holds not, for Man, and water, were not only given to Israel to be to them a sacrament: but also served for their ordinary corporal food, and so is not the bread and wine in the Lord's supper.  
3. If things be compared alike, our sacraments to their ordinary sacraments, no such consequence can be gathered as you intent: for the infants of Israel were circumcised, but did not eat the , until they were able to go to that place which God had appointed for the eating thereof, and to eat it according to the Lords ordinance: and so much we will grant for the Lords supper, that they are to eat it, that can eat it according to Christ's institution.  
4. If infants in partaking of those former Sacraments, were in them partakers of Chr, why shall not our infants also in the use of the sacrament of baptism be held partakers of the things signified, seeing (as you say, those sacraments were types of ours) the truth must be answerable to the type.  
Again, I answer more properly thus, that there shall be a proportion between the type and the truth, that baptism of the cloud and the sea, and our baptism. viz, that as young and old carnal Israelites were baptized in the cloud and sea: so young and ●●l spiritual Israelites shall be baptized by the baptism of repentance etc.  
First, I deny that the Israelites considered as they were accounted worthy to partake of the sacraments were carnal, but 
† Ex. 19 1. Pet. 2.  spiritual and holy.  
2. Under the type you have young and old in years: so if you would keep Proportion must be the like under the truth. But this you deny, and make two sorts of believers young and old. Now I ask you whom you call young and old Israelites, and if any that believes may defer his baptism; until he be old in faith? And if this be 
* Act. 8. 12. 36. 37 & 9 18. & 10. 47. 4. & 16. 15. 33.  not lawful, and none but young believers be baptized, how will your proportion stand between the type, & the thing signified? 3. Their baptism in the cloud and sea did preach unto them repentance, as well as our baptism doth unto us, and in this there is a similitude between them: but that our outward baptism, is the truth of that former baptism in the sea and cloud, to the Israelites, I desire it may be proved.  
Lastly, I would know, whom you mean, by spiritual fathers and their spiritual children? Before you called Abraham the father of the faithful and all believers his children. But thus to make up a proportion between your type and truth, you are driven to acknowledge other spiritual fathers, besides Abraham: which being so, you must grant that they are then so called in respect of their children to whom the covenant is conveyed by God's free grace together with them: For if the children come into the covenant by their own faith, and enter as did their parents, then are they Abraham's children, not theirs, according as the scripture speaketh. Rom. 4. 11. that he shall be the father of them that believe.  
Further I say▪ that our infants shall have a privilege far greater than the infants of the Israelites had in that tipical baptism. For they by it were only baptized into Moses, and the law, that by it they might learn Moses, and in Moses the truth in Christ as it were under a vail: but our infants under the Gospel shall have the daily institution and education of faithful parents etc.  
The Apostle saith in 1. Cor. 10. 2. that all the Israelites were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. But saith not as you say, into the law, those sacraments were seals unto them of the covenant of salvation, not of the law, which then was not given. Secondly, to be baptized unto Moses may thus be understood, viz. that they were baptized, Moses being their guide, or minister by whom they were instructed in the ways of God. Thirdly, the baptism of the Israelites howsoever it might be typical in some respect, yet did it signify unto them true things, whereof they were partakers. 
Deu. 6. 6. & 11. 18. ●. Gen. 18.  Lastly, the infants under the law and before, † had their daily education by faithful parents, as well as ours have under the Gospel: so that in this respect, there is no such material difference, as you pretend.  
Moreover I deny that the baptism of the cloud and sea, was a type of the external baptism of the new Testament in the abstract: but it was a type of our baptism in the concrete, that is, the baptism of the cloud did type out our baptism in the three parts thereof, viz. 1. the baptism of the spirit, 2. the declaration of faith and repentance, the antecedent of the baptism with water, 3. the outward washing with water, a manifestation of the foresaid particulars etc.  
Here you set us down types & things typed, but no proofs thereof, I know that the Sacraments of the new Testament, did succeed the Sacraments of the old, confirming to us the same spiritual things that theirs did to them. But how these did type forth ours in the concrete (as you speak) I conceive not: our sacraments are external as well as theirs, and administered by * man, who neither doth nor can administer the spirit. 1. For 
Mat. 3. ●1.  the baptism of the spirit, 
“ Deu. 10. ●. & 30. 6. ● Cor. 10. 4. Heb. 11. ●9. 30. 39 ●sa. 1. 16.  they were partakers thereof, and † manifested their faith and repentance as we do. 2. concerning the declaration of faith and repentance to be a part of the sacrament of baptism, I see no warrant; seeing it is more general than the sacrament itself, and is an imperfect work in man, and sometimes hypocritical, and therefore cannot be a part of the seal of God's covenant that shall confirm faith. Also this were to teach, that the assurance and pledge of man's salvation depends upon himself, if the declaration of his faith and repentance, be held a part of the sacrament. Again, faith and repentance is that condition of the covenant that is required on our part, and therefore not a part of the seal thereof. Besides, that which is often to be repeated cannot be a part of baptism, confession of sin and faith is so often to be repeated as there shall be occasion. Ergo etc. 3. The outward washing with water, being administered to the faithful or their ●ed in the name of the Father etc. is that sacrament of baptism which was 
“ Mat. 3. ●  administered by john, and is administered by the ministers of the Gospel.  
Furthermore, whereas I said that to deprive children of baptism ●● to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people, you answer.  
That God's bounty is as large every way to our infants as to theirs, for Gods 〈…〉 tie of actual exhibiting and sealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham & 〈◊〉 his carnal infants, was never extant in the old Testament: neither were their parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it up 〈…〉 their infants.  
You confess the Lord to be as bountiful towards our infants as towards the infants of the jews, indeed, neither comfortable to theirs or ours. Not to theirs, because (say you) the everlasting covenant was never exhibited and sealed to Abraham, and all his carnal seed. I have 
† pag. 12. 13.  before showed that the covenant was sealed up to Abraham and his infants. And that it was exhibited and sealed to him and to all the faithful: see Gen. 17. 7.- 13. Rom. 4. 11. Hebr. 11. 13.- 39 but not to all, (say you,) externally, it was given to all and sealed by circumcision, though internally it was not, no more is it to all that stand members of the visible church of the new Testament. Secondly, if the parents had ●o comfort in circumcising of their infants in respect of the promise in Christ to be unto their infants, they had none at all in that action, for out of Christ is no true comfort: and so you make circumcision an idle sign, which indeed did preach unto them, (howsoever you think thereof,) Christ the promised seed, 
* Col. 2. 11.  in whom they were circumcised.  
And circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then, as he is preached ●●w to infants. Your doctrine casteth infants out of God's everlasting covenant, both under the old and new Testament, and so Christ to them is not preached at al. But what is it that now preacheth Christ to infants more plainly than circumcision did to the jews infants, if not baptism? How be it you make a question, how the preaching of Christ could profit infants either then in types or now in truth. And you say, neither do I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infants any thing at that instant, but afterward to learn that which circumcision taught him viz. the circumcision of the heart. And if you say, that infants baptized are to be instructed. I answer, that in the new Testament by baptism we manifest what we have, namely, the inward baptism, whereas in the old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not, but aught to have viz. the inward circumcision of the ha●… etc.  
First, the preaching of Christ by circumcising and baptizing of infants did then and doth now profit their parents by seeing the covenant confirmed to their seed. And although the infants themselves know not the use thereof, till afterward, yet it makes not the Lords ordinance, to be any more unlawful, then † Christ's washing Peter's feet, because Peter understood 
●oh. 13. 7.  it not. It sufficeth that the Lord commandeth the thing to be done, and that children be * taught the use thereof, as they shall be capable. 
Deu. 6. 20.   
Secondly, concerning that difference you make between baptism and circumcision, afferming that by the former, we manifest what we have etc. and by the other, they learned what they had not. It is not true that you say of the circumcised, that they had not inward circumcision, for God did promise it to them and their children. Deut. 30. 6. as well as to us. And here let it be minded, that you confess, that the Israelites ought to have had inward circumcision, if they ought to have had it, it was by their constitution or everlasting cov. of God made with them. For otherwise how ought they have had it? then how will you prove that their covenant was carnal which required inward circumcision? the truth agrees with itself.   

Argument 6.  
Math. 28. 19 If Christ gave a commandment for the publishing of his covenant and administration of baptism the seal thereof to all nations: then are the believing Gentiles and their infants to receive the same. But the first is true, Mat. 28. 19 Ergo the latter also is true. Act. 13. 48. & 16. 14. 15. 32. 33.  
It will be objected against the Major, that it follows not, that the infants are any more bound to receive baptism, than they are bound whilst they are infants to receive the word, but the word they cannot receive. Ergo. I answer that the commandment is general to all nations, and therefore as Abraham if he should not have obeyed the Lord commanding him to circumcise himself, and all his family, yea the infants, he should grevously have rebelled against God: so whosoever of the Gentiles shall not believe and be baptized both himself and his seed, shall have no part nor portion in the inheritance of Christ: seeing he cuts himself and his seed from the covenant of God. Genes. 17. 4. And though infants be not capable of the preaching of the covenant (which notwithstanding they are bound unto, as they shall come to years of discretion) yet are they capable of the seal, as before is showed, and therefore by virtue of this general commandment, Mat. 28, 19 are to be baptized.  M. Smyth. 
The errors of this Argument I will discover in order, first I deny that baptism is a seal of the covenant of the new Testament. Secondly, I deny that circumcision was the seal of the everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ. Thirdly, Baptism therefore doth not succeed in the place of circumcision, etc. Fourthly, I deny that although Abraham had a special commandment, did circumcise his male infants, therefore Christians upon this general commandment Mat. 28. 19 shall baptize their infants. Fiftly, I say rather the contrary is hence proved, etc.  R. Clyfton. 
This is a ready course in answering, if it might be admitted of to deny one thing after another without showing any reason to the contrary. As for your particulars I do here brand them with the letter E. for errors, of three of them I have spoken before more particularly, the fourth is now to be answered unto, concerning the baptizing of infants upon the general commandment of Christ, Mat. 28. 19 which you deny to have warrant from that scripture: I prove it thus.  
If there was a commandment given for the sealing of the everlasting covenant to Abraham and his children, then is this, Mat. 28. 10. a commandment and faithfully described in the institution of baptism, as the person, condition and time of circumcision. But for paedobaptism there is no express description of the person, condition or time of their baptism, etc.  
I answer to the consequent of the Major, that our Saviour hath † reveled 
●. 17. 6. ●14. 26. ●. ●. ●.  to his church the whole will of his father, which is contained in the Scriptures, not only in the writings of the Apostles, but also of the prophets, which he hath for that end, commanded us to search joh. 5. 39 and Peter to take heed unto, 2 Pet. 1. 19 and Paul commends to be profitable to teach, to convince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness, etc. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. and therefore Gods will must not so be included in the writings of the Apostles, that the prophets be excluded, but out of them both to learn what Christ teacheth. For as the books of the new Testament do plainly declare the fulfilling of all the mysteries of our redemption: so do the books of the old Testament speak of some things more expressly than the writings of the Apostles. But to come to the point. I answer, that it was not needful for Christ to describe things in so large manner, which before had been written, and were still to continue, as example, the sealing of the covenant, the persons young and old that were to be signed, and such like, what needs a new repetition hereof, when the Lord purposed not to disamnul them: so much as was to be altered, concerning the outward sign, Christ omitted not to declare. And therefore cannot be accused of any unfaithfulness, if he in express words had not commanded infants to be baptized, seeing under the old Testament they had the sign of the covenant.  
Again, the Apostles writings do plainly enough declare unto us that infants are to be baptized, as both from that commandment of Christ, Mat, 28. 19 and the practice of the Apostles in baptizing of families, and by other reasons hath been showed.  
And concerning, the time of baptizing, I see no reason why you should cavil about it, more than about the time of administering the Lords Supper, which Christ hath not so precisely set down neither the day, nor time of the day for the administering thereof, as Moses did of the .  
And the scriptures which you cite do show that bap▪ is to be administered when men enter into God's covenant, and children entering in at the same time with their parents, are to be baptized at the same time with them, as Ishmael and all Abraham's house were circumcised * the same day with Abraham. 
Deu. 17. ●.  And thus much for answer to the consequent of your major, which ●so serveth to answer your minor. But touching those scriptures which you allege for proof of your Minor, thus I answer in general to them all: that they speak of such as came newly to the faith of the Gospel, to believe that jesus was the Christ, who were never baptized before. And this rule I confess to be observed to all such like as are to be received to baptism, that they make confession of their faith & sins as they did: but they serve not to teach us to deal so towards their infants or the infants of believers that are borne within the covenant. For the condition of them that are to be admitted into the church and of them that are borne in it, is not the same as concerning the administration of baptism, no more than it was in the jewish Church touching circumcision; for the one is declared to come within the covenant by their own profession; and the other to be within it, by their being borne of believing parents: if you had instanced an example of one that was borne in the Church of the new testament, of parents that were members thereof, whose baptizing was differed until he was able to make confession of faith, then had you said more to the purpose, though in such an example there might have been neglect, as was in Moses in circumcising his son.   

Argument VII.  
Act. 16. 15. 33. Lastly, the Apostles practice is our instruction, but they baptized not only the master of the family which believed: but all his household, Act. 16. 15. 33. Therefore now also the like is to be done: and so consequently the infants are to be baptized, for they are a part of the family, see Gen. 45. 18. where joseph bade his brethren, take their father and their househoulds and come to him. Now in chap. 46. 5. 7. it is said they carried their children and wives in charets, noting hereby, that children were of the household, else had they no commandment to have carried them into Egypt, see also verse 27. and Exodus 1. 21. it is said, because the midwives feared God, therefore he made them houses, in 1 Tim. 5, 8. The Apostle saith, he that provideth not for his own & namely for them of his household he denieth the faith, etc. Now I would ask if children be exempted from the household in any of these places. or in any other where mention is made of a particular household. Therefore, this Argument will prove that children were baptized, unless it can be showed that they were especially exempted. And if the holy Ghost have not exempted them, who dare do it, against a general commandment of baptizing all nations.  M. Smyth. 
I make answer to this Argument confessing it wholly, but yet denying the consequent of your conclusion: for it doth not follow because all the household of Lydia and the Jailer were baptized, that therefore infants were baptized, you shall see what exceptions I take.  R. Clyfton. 
The consequence will follow, for if the Apostle baptized whole families, than children also if there were any, seeing they are of the family, and no where excepted, but I will come to your exceptions, the first whereof is this.  
I say though infants are a part of the family etc. yet it doth not follow that wheresoever there is mention made of a family, that therefore that family had infants in it, etc.  
Neither doth it follow, that the families of Lydia, of the Jailer and of Stephanas, were all of them without children, because the scripture doth not mention their children. The general speech of baptizing the household, satisfies you not, except it be proved that there were infants therein: and why should not you (that stands for actual believing before baptism) as well prove that Lydia's family did believe as the mistress did▪ of whom only it is said, that the Lord opened her heart, and she attended unto the things which Paul spoke. The Acts of Christ and his Apostles are summarily recorded, and not every thing that was done at large explained.  
Certainly, if the Apostle had minded that children were not to be baptized, he would not have spoken so indefinitely of the family: yea hereby he teacheth that in the administration of this sacrament: he followed the common 
* Gen. 17▪ 13. Exo● 1●, 4●. 4●.  practice used in circumcising of the whole family when the governor thereof received the faith.  
2. By this reason you might prove that Lydiaes' husband and the Gaylors' wife and their children of 40. years old and their servants of 60. years old were baptized, etc.  
First, it is a question whether Lydia had a husband, and more like that she was a widow, because it is said to be her household. 2. Concerning the Gaylors' wife, their children and servants, what letteth that they might not be baptized, if they refused not the grace of God offered? The Apostle preached 
† Act. 16. 31. 32.  salvation to the whole family, and the Jailer believed, and he with all that belonged unto him were baptized. Dare you now except against any in that family, seeing the holy Ghost so speaks? from these general speeches I prove that all in both households were baptized, show the contrary if you can.  
3. If it were yielded that there were infants in Lydia●s family and in the Gaylors, doth it follow that they were baptized? no thing les, and that I will declare thus. 1. You say, to the baptism of the Gaylors' wife and children of years of discretion, there was necessarily required saith and repentance, or else they were not baptized: so say I because infants cannot believe and repent, though they were in the family, yet they shall not be baptized.  
I might ask you where I so said of the Gaylors' wife and children, but I will not contend with you about it. Concerning infants, I have proved that their baptizing is not to stay, until they can themselves make confession of their faith and sins, and you do not yet say any thing worth answer, to the contrary.  
2. I say, that although it be said, that all that pertaineth to the Jailer were baptized yet it is also said, verse, 32. that the word was preached to all that were in his house. & verse 34. that all his household believed, etc. seeing therefore all that were baptized in the Gaylors' house believed by the preaching of the word. Infants that could not believe were not baptized, etc.  
First, all that you here say doth not prove that all that were baptized in the gaylors' house believed by the preaching of the word. The word was preached to all in his house, that were able to understand, and so must both ver. 32. & 34. be understood of such. But Paul speaking of baptizing them, saith, that he was baptized and all that belonged unto him. Which speech must needs include his little children also, if he had any.  
And although it be said, that he rejoiced that he with all his household believed in God, yet will it not follow hereupon, that his children were not baptized, seeing children are to be esteemed in the number of believers. And those words may have this construction, viz. that he rejoiced, that he with all his family were received into the faith of Christ, or were accepted into the number of believers, and so it includes his children.  
Concerning the time, being midnight, which you say was a distempered time to waken young children, it is nothing that you say: were not the infants of Israel awakened and carried out of Egypt at the like time of the night? Exod. 12. 31. upon less occasion then either of these, children may be awakened.  
●. I say for Lydia's family, it is not said that all her house was baptized, or yet if it had been so said, that every particular person of her family was baptized, for Mat. 3. ●●. It is said, all Judea went out to John and were baptized of him, etc. yet hence it cannot be concluded that all and every one that went out were baptized▪ etc.  
The scripture saith, that Lydia was baptized and her household without excepting of any, the like is said of Stephanas family, 1 Cor. 1. 16. And by † that which is written of the gaylors' house, we are taught how to understand 
Act. 16. 33  the Apostle. And be it that this word (all) be used sometimes for many, as in that of Mat. 3. 5. 6. What then? yet it follows not: therefore, it is so to be taken in this place of the Apostle, seeing he useth it for every particular of the whole in all these places, 2 Cor. 5. 10. Hebr. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 27. 28. & 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 4. 20. & 4. 15. & 5. 18. and in divers others.  
But you say, As Act. 16. 32. 34. only they that believed were baptized, s● was it with them of Lydia's family.  
You are to bold with the text to add unto it. The Apostle saith not, that only they that believed were baptized, but that they preached to all that were in his house, and wa● baptized with all that were his. Next, you proceed to conclude two Arguments against baptizing of infants, the former is this.  
The Apostles practice is our instruction, but the Apostle in baptizing howsholds, First Preached to all that were in the family, and then they believing were baptized. Ergo they only that by the preaching of the word were converted and believed were baptized.  
This argument might have been granted, had not the conclusion contained more than the former propositions, viz. this word, (only) which ought to have been placed in the one of them, and if in the assumption, than were it false to say, that only they that believed were baptized and ●o more: the places whereupon this argument is grounded are answered before. And it is to be further observed, that this was the Apostles practise to such as were of years and not before of the Church. Your other Argument is this.  
That which the Apostles practised in one family, they practised in all families that they baptized: But in the Gaylors' family according to Christ's commission, Mat. 28. 19 they first made them Disciples by preaching the word, Act. 16. 32. 34. Ergo. etc.  
This argument also may be granted, and maketh nothing against the baptizing of infants, except your heretical collection which I deny. And this may suffice for reply to your answer to this & the rest of my arguments.   

OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE father's concerning the baptizing of infants.  
Hereunto I will adjoin some testimonies of the fathers, not to prove that children ought to be baptized, which is to be done, & is by the scriptures already proved: but to show the practice hereof in ancient Churches. Augustine (as I find alleged) writing to Jerome. epist. 28. saith, Cyprian not making any new decree. but firmly observing the faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops, that as soon as one was borne, he might lawfully be baptized. See Cyprian epist. to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists, lib. 4. cap. 23. & 24. saith, that the baptism of infants was not derived from the authority of man, neither of counsels, but from the tradition or doctrine of the Apostles. Ciril, upon Lev. Cham 8. approveth the baptism of infants and condemneth the iteration of baptism. Origine upon the Rom. saith, that the Church received baptism of infants from the Apostles. Nazianzenus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum. 3. saith, that baptism agreeth to every age, to every condition of life, to all men if thou hast an infant, it is sanctified from his infancy, yea from the finger ends it is consecrated. After he saith: some man will say what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor pain, what shall we baptize those? & he answers, yea verily. Amb. lib. 2. de Abraham cha. 11. Speaking of baptism, saith, neither old man nor Proselyte, nor infant is to be excepted, because every age is guilty of sin and therefore stands need of the Sacrament. These & many other of the fathers do bear witness according to the Scriptures of the lawfulness of the baptizing of infants.  Mr. Smyth. 
And for conclusion you produce the fathers: I say that the producing of fathers, who all of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies, shall avail you nothing in your cause, and you that deny the testimony of father's contrary to the Scriptures, how can you with any colour produce fathers against us in case contrary to the Scriptures etc.  R. Clifton 
I plead not for the errors of the fathers, but for the truths which they held according to the Scriptures; And where you charge them to hold plenty of antichristian heresies, you tax them very deeply, and you that so censure others, had need to judge yourself, otherwise the Lord will find out a sentence against you. Also I desire you to show where I produce the testimony of the father's contrary to the Scriptures? you are grown to be very careless what you affirm. For my producing of the fathers against you, I do not recall that I have done, seeing their testimony is the truth, who show the practice of their times, according to the Scriptures.  
I know the device of your producing of fathers, viz. 1. to set a gloss upon your antichristian heresy of baptisiing infants. 2. to draw the world into dislike of the Lords truth. But if any should produce testimonies of the fathers against your separation against you in the case of Prelacy etc. what would you answer, would you not say they are testimonies of men living in corrupt times, etc. even so say I to you etc.  
Here I charge you with blaspheming the ordinance of Christ in calling the baptizing of infants, antichristian heresy, 
† Esay. 5.  woe to him that speaks evil of good. 2 with sin, in saying it is my device to produce the fathers to set a gloss upon my antichristian heresy, etc. for were it a falseshod that I defend (as I know it is not) yet know you that my soul is free from such wicked intention to produce the fathers in that behalf. It is one thing to produce the testimony of the father's witnessing the truth according to the scripture, & another, for the defence of errors: the latter we reject, & you take up, but the former we approve and you condemn. And although we are not to build our faith upon the fathers; yet for matter of fact done in their times we may give credit to their report: and so their testimony serves to prove something, namely to show the practice of their times to which end I did allege them, and that is not to confess that they prove nothing as you charge me. And say Remember that, and let all men take notice, that you produce testimonies, that you say prove nothing. And I pray you remember with what spirit you writ these words.  
But why do you produce testimonies of the fathers, forsooth to show the practice of ancient Churches. But all these Churches were Antichristian by your own confession, etc.  
Yea Sir, I do produce them to show the practice of Ancient Churches, whose testimonies is not so lightly rejected, save of you and such like, that condemn all Churches for antichristian, except such heritical synagogues as your own is. As concerning these ancient Churches in the first two hundred years after Christ, albeit some devises of men crept in, and as they grew elder so increased, yet that they were Antichristian, where have you my confession? it is strange that you dare affirm such untruths. And for anticihrstian antiquity & universality, I could wish you were as free from Anabaptistical novelitie, as I am from approving of any error or superstito eyth●●o● the antiquity or universality of it, the truth we defend needs no such Popish props: but yet antiquity (when the thing is found to be true that is ancient) is not lightly to be regarded seeing the truth is more ancient than error. And although you esteem not of the testimony of the father's witnessing against you, yet have you summoned together such men as you thought would give any countenance to your error, to battle against both the Scriptures and them: but their testimony doth little pleasure you, as shall appear by the examination of the particulars. The first you allege is. Henr-Pantal●on 
 Chro. fol. 6. who saith, that Victor Apher. anno 193. ordained that a● Easter it should be indifferently administered to all, whereupon I gather, that before his time only such as were catechized in the faith were baptized, for he would not decree that heathen should be baptized.  
This man (I take his words upon your report) doth mention Victor's decree for the time of administration of baptism to all young and old, viz at Easter. But would any but you infer hereupon, that baptism was not administered before this time to infants? You might aswell say that before that time it was not administered to the elder sort, for he speaks in general of the persons to be baptized. Victor brings not in baptizing of infants, which was then the Church's practice, but prescribes a certain time for the general administration of that sacrament: as Gelasius did the like, anno 494. That infants were baptized before Victor's time, appeareth by that 
relics 〈…〉 e, p. ● 96. ●●bius.  * of Higinius, who decreed that children which were to be baptized should have a Godfather and a Godmother: Anno 143. Higinius lived before Victor, about 50. years. Your next, Eusebius Hist. lib. 7. cap. 8. saith that Novatus rejected the holy baptism and overthrew the faith and confession which was accustomed before baptism: whereby it appeareth that faith and confession were required before baptism: and therefore the rudiments thereof still remain that in the baptizing of infants, a confession of sin and faith is required of the surety or parents.  
That confession was required before the baptizing of men grown to years and newly come to the faith is not denied, and more than this can not be gathered from Eusebius words as you set them down. But what is this against the baptizing of infants? Howbeit I find not this of Novatus in Lib. 7. chap. 8. but in that chapter mention is made of a certain faithful brother that being present when some were baptized and heard what was demanded and what was answered, weeping, etc. began to confess that he had otherwise received baptism of Heretics, etc. Now if he was baptized of Heretics without confession of his faith, it was contrary to the practice of the Church, & of the Apostles concerning such as came newly to the faith.  
Eusebius ecclesiastical hist. lib. 6. c. 33. thus writeth of No●atus, that ●e being vexed with an unclean spirit in his youth, and having▪ spent▪ s●me 〈◊〉 with Exorcists, fell into a great sickness, and lying in his bed, for necessity he was baptized, neither any of those things which were accustomed to follow baptism w●re so 〈…〉 nly fulfilled, etc.  
As for the rudiments of this confession, which you say still remains, thereunto I answer, that this practice is a kind of imitation of that which was observed in former times towards them of years: and it may be that the parents which brought their childten to be baptized did make some short confession of their faith (for of confessing of sin is no step remaining that I know, only a promise to forsake sin) which after did grow (as other things) into corruption.  
Again, you allege Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 15. reporting a story of one that did baptize children in sport, and that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, though d●ne in sport, yet finding that the children had questioned and answered according to the manner of the catechumeni in baptism, did approve it, whereby it appeareth that then only persons by confession of their faith and sins were admitted to baptism in Alexandria.  
This story I do not find in that chapter before quoted, but such a like in chap. 14. yet both your written copy and printed book, appoints to cha. 15,  
If you mean that of Athanasius baptizing of certain Catechumeni, lib. 10. c. 14. I answer that those children so baptized seem not to be any children of the Church but some of the heathen which with their parents were instructed in the faith, but not yet in communion or baptized. Again, in that they being thus baptized were by the Bishop delivered to his Church to 
Athanasy vero at● eos etc. ● vocatis p● rentibus s● Dei obte●tione trad● ecclesiae su● nutrien●●  to be borough up, their parents thereto consenting: which consent the Bishop needed not to have required, or so committed those children to be educated, if they and their parents had been already of the Church, for to them then had this care appertained. Besides if none but the elder sort had been baptized (which by that which is here objected is not proved) yet was this but the practice of one particular Church which might be tainted with that error about baptizing of infants, as Tertullian and some others were in those times.  
Next you allege Hoseus Petricov. Confess. de fide cap. 27. saying, that these 2. Apostolical traditions which the Scripture teacheth not, viz, that there are 3. persons and one God, and that Dionysius & Origin do testify baptism of infants to be an Apostolical tradition. Now you know their Apost. traditions were antichristian inventions.  
This witness will do you little pleasure: for as he calleth the baptizing of infants a tradition, so doth he the Trinity, which the scripture doth manifestly teach in sundry places. Now if you accept not his testimony in calling the Trinity a tradition, why do you produce him against baptizing of infants? Besides though this man was a Papist, yet is his witness with us, for calling the baptism of infants an Apostolical tradition, he means as the Papists do, such doctrines of the Apostles as were not written which they hold equal with the scriptures. Again, this he saith is so called by Dionysius and Origen, who understood thereby the doctrine of the Apostles: And those Apostolical traditions (whereof you dream) were not in their times in esse.  
Polydore Virgil, you bring in also to testify, that it was the use with the Ancients, that persons of years (sere) in a manner should be baptized clad with white garments etc. and this was performed at Easter and Whitsuntide, etc.  
This witness tells us that it was in use with the Ancients not only to baptize the elder sort that turned to the faith, but appointed the n● to be clad in white, & that they were instructed until Easter, (th●ir time appointed for baptism): & these it seems were the Catechumeni (for in those former times many had not embraced the faith) now this author's saith not that children borne in the Church were kept unbaptized until they could make profession of their own faith, whereof our dispute is.  
The words of Lactantius (whom you also city) are general of young & old, whose testimony may serve to fill up the number, but proves not your desire, his words you set down thus Candidu● egreditur nitidis exer●itus undis: atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo, which may be understood of infants as well as of the elder sort.  
Concerning Lodovicus Vives, upon August. de Civit. Dei cap. 27. (if 
●dovicus ●ves flo●● anno ●4●. ●●d in R. 〈…〉 r. 8. his ●●, as did ●● Erasm.  he have words tending to any such purpose for which you allege him,) seeing he is but a late writer, I would know out of which of the Ancients he proveth that he saith, certainly from that place of Augustine he can gather no such thing as you set down in his name.  
Lastly, you cite Erasmus in his annotations upon the fift of the Romans▪ to say, That in Paul's time it was not received, that infants should be baptized.  
Erasmus brings no proof for that he saith, and therefore being of so late time, what is his witness against so many fathers, testifying the contrary. Thus in alleging of him and the rest, you show the weakness of your cause, that have not one ancient father directly to witness with you, but are driven to call them to witness that in this thing were of contrary judgement to yourself.   

REASONS AGAINST baptizing of infants, answered.  R. Clifton 
Now let us come to consider of the reasons alleged to the contrary, the first of them is this.  

1. Reason:  
Because there is neither precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptized by john or Christ's Disciples, only they that did confess their sins and confess their faith were baptized: Mar. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37.  
Answer  
1. This reason being brought into form will bewray the weakness thereof, for suppose it should be granted that there was neither a special commandment or example in the practice of john or Christ's Disciples for the baptizing of infants, yet it may not withstanding be lawful to baptize them, namely if by sound consequence it may be gathered out of the Scripture. And this may be done by good warrant from the example of our Saviour Christ, Mat. 22. 31. 32 who reasoning against the Saducees concerning the resurrection, proves it by Argument necessarily drawn from Exod. 3. 6. where no such thing was expressly mentioned, and thus he taught usually and refuted his adversaries, as the history of the Gospel witnesseth. After the same manner doth Paul in his epistles to the ROMANS and GALATHIANS prove justification by faith only without works of the law, this he did not prove by alleging any place in all the old testament in plain terms affirming so much, but by conclusion of necessary consequence from the scriptures. And to this purpose might divers other instances be alleged. So likewise if we prove the baptizing of infants by unanswerable arguments out of the old and new testament, (though we can not show any plain precept or example) yet may upon warrant thereof, not fear to baptize them. For the author of this reason himself can not deny, that both he and we must believe divers things which we gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that we shall not find in express words, as that there be 3 persons in one Godhead, that the son is Homousius, that is, of the same substance with the father; now such express words cannot be showed in the scripture. And many such like.  
2. Also if this Argument be sufficient to bar children from the Sacrament of Baptism, then is it as sufficient to keep back women from the Lords Supper, but the lawfulness thereof is only proved by consequence, because they are within the covenant and are partakers of the Sacrament of baptism. Thus the weakness of this reason being manifested, I will thirdly answer unto it.  
3. That there is both precept by Christ and example by his Disciples for the baptizing of infants as hath been proved by my two last reasons alleged to prove the lawfulness of baptizing of Infants. Commandment I say, Mat. 28. 19 Go teach all nations baptizing them, where is no exception of the Children of faithful parents. And therefore there being a law once given that the covenant should be sealed to the infants as well as to the beleving parents, the same law of sealing the covenant, must stand still in force to the parties (though the outward sign be changed) except the lawmaker do repeal it, or have set down some ground for the repeal thereof, which must be showed, or else this commandment doth bind us and our infants to receive this feel of the covenant.  
And as for examples, we read that the Apostle baptized Lydia & her household. Act. 16. 15. and the Jailor and all that belonged unto him vers. 33. both which seeming to be great households, it is not likely that they were without children though the Evangelist mention them not. But the exception is, that only such as did confess their sins & confess their faith were baptized. Concerning john, he was sent to call the people to repentance and so to prepare the way of the Lord Mat. 3. 3. and so many as did repent and confess their sins, he baptized: but did john refuse their children if they brought them to him? but it willbe said there is no mention made that he did baptize them: no more say I, is there that they were offered unto him. There is no mention that the disciples of Christ were baptized, and yet it were too bold a part, and no doubt very false, to affirm that they were not baptized. All things that john did, nor that Christ did in the particulars are written. joh. 20. 30. but the sum thereof. And therefore to gather an Argument from hence, because there is no mention that children were baptized of john, therefore they ought not to be baptized, is a larger conclusion than the premises will bear.: and so that reason taken from the baptizing of the Eunuch (Philip baptized no childen when he baptized the Eunuch) is of no weight to prove that therefore children ought not to be baptized. Was not the Eunuch a stranger far from his country, now in journey homeward, & therefore not like that he should have his children with him, specially in such a tedious journey, & not knowing of this accident.  M. Smyth. 
Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptizing of infants, to the first argument you say, if it be brought into form, it will bewray the weakness of it, well I will bring it into form etc.  
That which hath neither precept nor example is not to be done: baptizing of infants hath neither precept nor example. Ergo. etc. Again another part of my argument may be brought into form thus. That which hath precept and example must be practised. baptizing of persons confessing their sins and their saith is commanded and was practised by Christ John and the Apostles. Ergo. etc.  R. Clyfton 
First, the Major of your former syllogism is not necessarily true, yourself confesseth † that every consequent necessarily deduced from the scripture is as well 
Parallels, ●g. 71.  and as truly the word of truth, as that which is in plain terms expressed, etc. and therefore you ought to have added (nor ground of the scripture) or such like.  
2. The minor I deny, and have proved that there is both precept and example for baptizing of infants. Your second Syllogism may be granted, save that the conclusion seems to intend more than the propositions, viz, in these words, (are the persons to be baptized) as if only such (& not infants) as can confess their faith, are to be baptized, which I deny.  
Before you proceed to confirm your argument: you labour first to remove my answer saying. Although a necessary consequence in all cases shall prevail, yet I say, the Lord can not leave us in this particular to necessary consequence, he dealing plainly and faithfully with us etc.  
You grant a necessary consequence in all cases shall prevail, why not in this particular. Your reason is, seeing the new Testament is more manifest than the old, etc. and Moses hath set down distinctly and plainly the persons with their qualifications to be circumcised, etc. either Christ hath as plainly and fully set down these particulars or else the new testament, is not so plain as the old.  
1. By this your reason you injure God & his word, who left the jews in the books of Moses only to consequences touching that great point of the resurrection, which yet Christ accounted sufficient, and against the Sadduces, drew his Argument to prove the resurrection out of Exodus, 3. 6. where no such thing is expressly mentioned, and so by your doctrine he dealt not plainly and faithfully. Also every other argument, that he or the Apostles used upon a necessary consequence can not stand with the open face of the gospel, thus far do●h your reason extend: but I will come to your particular whereof you would have it understood, viz, that Christ can not deal faithfully, if for the baptizing of infants he hath not as plainly described the ordinance of baptism, the persons with all other circumstances, etc.  
Do you think that if Christ have not set down every circumstance about baptism, that he is therefore unfaythful? what think you of his describing of the other Sacrament, where is it set down so plainly, that women shallbe partakers thereof? there is no mention that any woman was present at Christ's administration of his last supper: where is the time so described for the administration thereof, as was for the Passeover? must Christ for this be accused to have dealt not so faithfully as Moses? had our Saviour any need to teach or write otherwise then he hath done about the sacraments? seeing it is the same covenant under the Gospel that was sealed to the old Church, and a commandment given for the sealing thereof unrepealed: that which was to be changed concerning the outward ceremony, Christ hath plainly set it down with direction for for the administration thereof. And that which was needful for Moses in describing circumcision, was not so necessary for Christ in describing of baptism: because circumcision was to be administered only to the males, but baptism to both sexes, circumcision on the 8. day: baptism is tied to no strict time, and therefore the particular description of these circumstances might well be omitted, and no unfaithful dealing in Christ.  
As for the minding of it to be administered to infants, there was no use of any such particular direction, seeing the Lord had once ordained to seal his covenant to the faithful & their seed, & reneweth the same in a general manner under the Gospel, which may suffice to all that are sober minded.  
For it had been easily said, go teach etc. baptize them, & if they have any infants baptize them, etc.  
It is not for man to prescribe wisdom how to speak, things are taught plainly enough, if God give men ears to hear.  
But say that Christ john and the Apostles leaveth direction for this mean matter only by dark far fetched probable conjectures & consequence from the old testament, whi●h was only typical, etc. and hath not left evident grounds for it expressly in all the foresaid particulars, etc. is to say that Christ is not so faithful in his office prophetical as Moses was▪ etc.  
For these things which we defend are plain enough and no dark or farfetched conjectures, except to such, whose eyes the Lord hath blinded. Concerning our Reasons drawn from the writings of the old Testament we do herein follow the example of Christ & his Apostles, who did confirm, and prove that doctrine which they preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets. Paul saith, † that he witnessed to small and great, saying no other things than 
Act. 26.  those which M●ses and the Prophets did say should come: notwithstanding I have also confirmed, this doctrine of baptisiing of infants from the new Testament.  
In that you say, the old Testament was only typical, you must explain your meaning, for although some things were * typical under the old Testament 
Heb. 10. & 8. 13. ● 9 1-9 ●l, 2. 16. 17 Gal 4. 24. ●5.  yet other things were Moral, as the Moral † law which was a part of it: preaching, prayer and other spiritual parts of worship, which were commanded under the old Testament. Again, That Christ hath left undeniable grounds in the Scriptures for the baptizing of infants, before is showed.  
Moreover seeing that the new Testament was wrapped up and preached obscurely in the old Testament and types thereof, it was necessary that Christ should out of the old Testament, prove the resurrection etc. but now that the new Testament being written etc. why should we be sent to obscurities and coniectural cons●quentes etc.  
Because the books of the new Testament were not written, Christ and the Apostle might reason from obscurities & conjectural consequents out of the old Testament: do you thus argue indeed? was Christ's reasoning obscure for the resurrection? do you think the Saducees would have been sooner persuaded if the new Testament had been written and Christ had reasoned from it? no more than you willbe persuaded to believe the baptizing of infants for all the reasons we bring from the same. He that will not believe Moses and the prophets, will not believe the Apostles. Again, I deny that to reason from the Scriptures of the old Testament is to reason from obscurities: the Apostles have made all things clear and manifest, Ephe. 3. 5-9 whose writings do further us to the understanding of the prophets, & Christ himself sends us to search those Scriptures. joh. 5. 39 and Peter 
● Pet. 1. ●.  saith † ye do well if you take heed to the word of the Prophets as before is observed.  
Besides, the Trinity of people & unity of essence in the Godhead is proved by plain words 1. John 5. 7. etc.  
That the Trinity is proved by this scripture and by divers other places, I deny not, yet in these express words, That there be 3. persons in one Godhead, is not so set down in this place or in any other. Nether is found to be in those plain words, though the same thing may be concluded out of the Scriptures. But I did instance these, to show that every thing is not set down in so plain and express words as you would bear us in hand.  
Finally, I say, show me any necessary consequence for baptizing of Infants out of the old Test. or the new, and I yield.  
This I have done already, but for your yielding it is not in your own power, but in 
† Phi. 2. ●  God that must show mercy, and give grace, which I pray the Lord to give you, Amen.  
Yet a reason or two I will here add unto my former, to prove that infants of believers are within the covenant: from Gal. 3. 29. thus I reason.  
Whosoever are Christ's are Abraham's seed & within the covenant.  
The children of believers are Christ's: Therefore Abraham's seed & with in the covenant: and so consequently have right to baptism the seal thereof. The Assumption is thus proved. Children be either Christ's or else they 
* Act. 4.  cannot be saved: But they 
“ Mar. ● 13. 14.  may be saved. Ergo etc.  
2. The infants of believers are either of the church, 
† Eph. 1. 2. 23.  which is the body of Christ, or without: If within, then are they of the covenant, and Christ is theirs, for he 
* Esa. Eph. ● 25, 27. 2. 18. 22.  is given for and to his Church, and is the saviour of it: and so being of the church, baptism must belong unto them. But if children be without the covenant, then are they 
“ Eph. 2. 1  without God, without hope, and without promise of salvation, and so their estate as heathen, and the children of believers no more holy than the children of infidels, though Paul witnesseth the contrary.  
But I desire it may well be observed that you are driven to consequents for this matter, and secondly, that the Gospel of Christ is for babes. Matth. 11. 25. etc.  
What except you against a necessary consequence, is not that manner of reasoning lawful? did not Christ so reason, as before is showed? & you yourself do 
† Parale●● pag. 71. Caract. p. 33.  justify it. I know if you had such consequents for the baptizing of yourself, you would make them go for currant, as indeed they ought. But I do not only reason a consequentibus, but set down the express † commandement of God, for the sealing of young and old, and the example 
〈◊〉. 17. ● 13.  of the Apostle baptizing whole families.  
2. That the Gospel is for babes, I grant, and that in Mat. 11. 25. is applied to men of years, which are lowly and meek, but you must know that the most simple persons (as you speak) are capable of the mysteries 
Cor. 13. 12. Heb 11.- 14. 6, 13. 2 Pet. 4.  of the Gospel but in * part, and every man hath his time of groweth therein, and needeth to be instructed, that he “ may increase in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ? And though the Gospel be plain, yet we attain to the knowledge of it by degrees, yourself will confess this, at least your many alterations do testify thus much against yourself, and therefore the most simple is not so capable thereof as you pretend.  
Lastly, for my consequences which you call mere hallucinations & Sophisms. I justify them against your best arguments, how well you have disproved them, let the good Reader judge.  
Your second Answer and exception is, that if want of special precept and example bar children from baptism, it shall also bar women from the Lords supper. I deny it, for in plain terms it is said, 1 Cor. 11. 28. let Anthropos viz. either man or woman eat after examination. & Gal. 3. 28. there is neither male nor female in Christ etc. 1 Cor. 12. 13. we have been all made to drink into one spirit, and Dorcas is a disciple. Act. 9 36. and the disciples met together together to break bread. Act. 20. 7. etc.  
That women are to be partakers of the Lords supper is no question, but whether there be commandment or example, expressly naming women, that you have not showed from these scriptures. Concerning 1 Cor. 11. 28. there is a word of the common gender, but the Apostle saith not in plain terms thus, let every woman examine herself and so eat: seeing the word anthropos, may be applied to the man, and is sometimes restrained to man only, as in Matth. 19 3. is it lawful for Anthropos to put away his wife? and Hebr. 5. 1. and every high Priest is taken ex anthropon. And in reproving of their abuse the Apostle useth words of the masculine gender: also the words joined with Anthropos, 1 Cor. 11. 28. are of the masculine gender, let a man examine himself, cauton for he that eateth esthion, etc. this compared with Christ's institution where only men were present, though women were in the city, showeth this testimony not to be so plain as you pretend. Neither do the rest of your scriptures prove your desire. As for Dorcas being a disciple, is no express example, the women of the jews were Moses disciples, yet were it not true to reason, that therefore they were circumcised. As for Gal. 3. 28. & 1 Cor. 12. 13. they speak of the spiritual union in Christ, and spiritual grassing into his body by the spirit and baptism, but neither of them saith, let women partake of the Lords supper. I reason for the plain terms, otherwise I deny not, that arguments may be drawn from these scriptures to prove that women are to receive the Lords Supper.  
Your 3. Answer and exception followeth, wherein you do affirm that there is both precept and example for baptizing of infants etc. to these I have already answered in the sixth and seventh reasons going before.  
And there also may you receve satisfaction to that you have answered: but yet to one objection concerning the commandment once given, of the sealing of infants. I answer (say you) besides that baptism is not the seal of the new Testament but the spirit, and that circumcision was not the seal of the everlasting covenant etc. So though it were granted that infants of the old Testament were by circumcision sealed to the covenant made in Christ, which I peremptorily deny, yet seeing the time of circumcision is expired, therefore infants are not to be sealed by baptism.  
To all this it is answered 
“ pag. 12, 37. 38.  before that circumcision as also baptism are seals of the covenant of salvation, and though the time of circumcising be expired, yet is not the commandment of sealing of the covenant expired, & therefore infants are still to be sealed with baptism which succeedeth circumcision.  
In the last place you require prose that only persons that confessed their sins & their faith were baptized, I prove it thus: They only were to be baptized that Christ commanded to be baptized, persons made disciples by teaching, were only commanded to be baptized by Christ. Mat. 28. 29. Ergo etc.  
I deny your Assumption, the affirmative is not to baptize them only that are made disciples by teaching, but also their seed, as formerly hath been proved: and you feighne a false negative to that affirmative, in Mat. 28. 19  
2. Again, considering that in every affirmative there is included a negative, therefore wheresoever example is, that persons confessing their sins and their faith were baptized, there is signified that those that did not confess their sinews etc. were not baptized.  
This is granted of such as were of years and to be added to the Church; & so now to be practised towards any of the Turks or such like that should come to the faith. But this is false, that because persons confessing their faith were baptized, therefore the infants of the faithful, not able to make confession of their faith shall not be baptized. Willing confessing must be opposed to actual refusing, if the argument according to the mind of the holy Ghost stand good.  
For we must know that the body is one etc. and the seed one and not two, for in the new Testament they know God from the least to the greatest. Heb. 8. 11. and they are all taught of God. Mat 11. 11. and this I take to be a plain proof of the point which you desire.  
This serves rather to prove that children are to be baptized because they are of the same body of Christ. To affirm infants to be baptized is not to hold two seeds of contrary natures as you charge us, for as the father, so are his children partakers of the covenaunt, and both are a holy seed & children of God in respect thereof, though the father profess his faith & the child cannot, in respect of age. the father can reason, so cannot his infant, yet both of them are of the same nature, & reasonable creatures. And be it that some of the children whose parents profess the faith are not elected, so may it be also that the father that confesseth his faith is not elected, but this belongs not to us: we are to hold them as children of the covenant as the word teacheth. 
●. 8. 11.   
Concerning, Heb. 8. 11. all shall know me, etc. it must be understood of all that are capable of knowledge: God promised a more singular grace of illumination under the gospel of those things which the Church had more obscurely before Christ's coming: so doth he promise remission of sins, whereof children are partakers, & shallbe of this heavenly knowledge also, as by years they shallbe able to learn, the want whereof doth no more hinder them from being partakers of God's promise in Christ, than the want of knowledge, hinders an infant to be heir to his father's inheritance.  
But if this be an argument of force against the baptizing of infants, because the Lord saith, I will put my laws in their hearts: then will this be as forcible against them that are of years that they need not be taught, because the same Lord saith, they shall not teach every man his neighbour, etc. and so teaching shallbe overthrown also. The true sense is to be sought after, ● not thus to pervert scriptures ans you do to your own destruction.  
Touching that of joh. 6. 45. they shall be all taught of God, it must be understood 
joh. ●  of all, as they are capable of instruction, the promise is made to the church Esa. 54. 13. and so to children, as also that in Hebr. 8, 11. and shall be fulfilled to every one, as they shall be able to understand.  
Next upon my speeches affirming, that of john it is not said that he refused to baptize infants. you say, that john his preaching was such as peremptorily excluded infants, for it was the baptism of repentance etc.  
john's preaching of repentance, is the preaching of the Gospel which excludes not children: your reason is not good, for baptism of repentance respects the time to come, and not only sins passed, and bindeth the baptized to continual mortification. And both john & Christ▪ preached to the jews which 
* Act. 2. ● & 3. 25  were of the covenant, and therefore called them to repentance and taught them to believe that Christ was come, whom they looked for.  
For being not regenerate etc. yet they could not enter into the kingdom of God. Joh. 3. 5.  
Christ in john 3. 5. speaketh of true members in his sight: we are to hold the professors with their seed to be regenerate, because they are of the covenant, until the contrary appear by their deeds.  
And here it would be considered unto whom Christ and john spoke, unto the Jews etc. and yet he said repent and believe. Now if the Jews had been truly regenerate in their communion, john needed not to have required such conditions of them, but in few words might have said, come you faithful and all your infants and be baptized.  
1. john spoke to them that were of years and had sinned, & therefore repentance was necessarily required, not so of Infants that have not committed actual sin. 2. The preaching of the Gospel belongs to the regenerate, I mean the preaching of repentance and faith, seeing we are but regenerate in part, and “ daily sin. The primitive churches I hope 
▪ Mat. 6, 1●  you w●ll grant were regenerate in their communion (I use your terms) & yet to them was preached 
† Rev. 2. 5. 16. 21. and 3. 3. 20.  repentance. Ergo your reason fails you.  
3. The members of all true churches whether under the old or new Testament are holy, in regard of God's covenant, and so we are to walk towards them: but that every particular person is truly regenerate, is not our faith; because in visible Churches 
† Joh. 2. 19  there may be hypocrites, & man oft faileth on his part * and breaketh of. Notwithstanding, † charity binds 
●om. 11. 20. 1 Cor. 13.  us to hope the best, until the contrary appear.  
Lastly where you say▪ That the jews were not faithful in their communion because john saith the Lord will purge his store, & Christ saith, they are of your father the Devil.  
1. This may fall out to any true Church to have unfaythfull members that may pollute their communion, see the Churches of Asia, Rev. 2. 4. 5: 14. 15. 20. 21. & 3. 1. 2. 16. & of Galatia. Gal. 3. 1. but what is this to the purpose that the jews became unfaithful? (but by the way remember that they ought to have been faithful, which you deny to that Church) did not God's covenant stand still in force to the faithful and their seed? Rom. 9 6. 8. 15. & 11, 1. 2-5.  
2. Christ speaketh to such of the jews as by their works did show themselves to be of the Devil, he intendeth not to teach, that this was the constitution & state of the whole Church under the old Testament: as much as Christ said to these jews may be said to us under the Gospel, as of those Antichristians, whereof john speaketh: 1. john 2. 19 and therefore all that you have said, proves nothing for the question in hand.  
Again to prove the Disciples to be baptized, you cite joh. 4. 1. & 1. 35. 40. I answer, in the latter place is no mention of baptism and in the former, it is said that jesus baptized more disciples than john, which in verse, 2. is explained, that he did not baptize, but his disciples, showing that Christ baptized disciples by the hands of his disciples: So I think they were baptized of john as Christ was, but I will not contend there about. And for that you answer concerning the Eunuch, that some mention should have been made either of Philip or of the Eunuch touching his children.  
It is nothing that you say, for what occasion was there to speak of his children? And it is for you to prove that the Eunuch had children, seeing he was one (as it is like) that was made chaste by man: Mat. 19 12. & the rather because in regard of his honour and authority he was called Cheiffe governor as also in respect of his country, an Ethiopian: Act. 8. 27. see Esa. 56. 3. 4. 5. Now to your second reason.   

The 2. reason against baptizing of infants answered.  R. Clifton. 
But having thus discovered the weakness of this first reason let us come to the next which is this:  
Reason, 2.  
Because Christ commandeth to make Disciples by teaching them and then to baptize them. Mat. 28. 19 joh. 4. 1. But infants can not by doctrine become Christ's disciples, and so can not by the rule of Christ be baptized.  
Answer.  
1. The Apostles were indeed commanded to make Disciples and to call unto the faith and fellowship of the Gospel not only the jews, but the Gentiles throughout the world and gave them power to preach the Gospel, which before had been preached to Abraham: Gal. 3. 8. And to baptize all that did receive it. And this we grant that faith must go before baptism, in all such as are to be made Disciples and brought into the covenant of God. So went faith before circumcision: Abraham first believed & after was circumcised. And likewise must all they which with Abraham enter into God's covenant, first believe and then be baptized, as the Eunuch, Act. 8. 37. Lydia Act. 16. 15. & the Keeper of the prison, verse. 33. but when such have receved the faith, then are their infants and household capable also of baptism, as Abraham's family was of circumcision, he believed the promises Gen. 17. & therefore it is written that when God opened the heart of Lydia that she did attend to the word that Paul preached and believed; not only she herself, but all her household were baptized, and yet is there no mention of the faith of any of them, save of Lydia's only. And so the Keeper believing, all that appertained unto him were baptized. And this is proportionable to the example of Abraham, whose faith we find sufficient to interest all his in the covenant, and make them capable of the seal.  
2. Christ taketh the same course in giving out his commission to his Disciples, Mat. 28. 19 to bring the Gentiles into God's covenant, that the Lord took with Abraham for making his covenant with him that he should be the father of many nations etc. he did not first command him to be circumcised, but preached to him the Gospel or covenant, and he believing was circumcised and his household: So here is a commandment, first for the publishing of the Gospel to them that were not in Christ: and for baptizing such as believed with their families (for it is included in this commandment, else had not the Apostle baptized the families of Lydia and of the Keeper, as before is observed.) And it is well to be minded that there is no mention made of the faith of any in the family of Lydia, save of Lydia's only, for it is not said all in the house that believed were baptized, which had been necessary if this commandment of Christ should be expounded after the mind of the Anabaptists.  
3. If children shallbe excluded from baptism because they can not be made Disciples by teaching and so believe, then by as good reason may they be excluded from salvation, for he that saith he that believeth and is baptized shallbe saved, saith also, he that believeth not, shallbe damned Mar. 16. 16. if therefore want of faith be sufficient to exclude infants from baptism, than likewise the want of faith is sufficient to exclude them from salvation. If the former be held to be the meaning of Christ, then must also the latter be granted, a thought whereof is to be abhorred.  
Lastly, general rules must be taken with their sense and meaning. It is a general rule given by the Apostle. 2 Thes. 3 10. that if any would not work, he should not eat. Yet if any should gather from hence, that the impotent & infants should not eat, because they do not work, this were to offer violence, & to wrest the Apostles doctrine: So Christ giving a general rule for the making of Disciples and baptizing them: now to deprive the infants of believing parents of baptism, because they cannot receive instruction (which is intended only of them that are capable thereof) is to diminish the commandment of Christ: alike as he that should say, infants can not believe, and therefore cannot be saved. Again, it can never be the true meaning of a scripture, when it is so expounded, that the exposition contradicteth other scriptures, or any sound conclusion gathered out of the Scriptures, as this exposition of the Anabaptists doth upon this place of Mat. 28. 19 as my former reasons for the baptizing of infants, do plainly manifest.  Mr Smyth. 
Next followeth, your answer to my 2. Reason, which reason of mine is framed thus: They that can not by teaching be made Christ's disciples ought not to be baptized. Infants by teaching can not be made disciples: Ergo, etc.  
Your answer to this Argument of mine, consisteth in 4. particulars, etc. to the first particular of your answer, I say that you err mistaking the Scripture, for Abraham's faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessary antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary precedent, example type or pattern of justification. And circumcision in Abraham was not a seal of his justification or of the everlasting covenant of God etc.  R. Clifton 
I answer 1. to the former proposition of your argument that it is false, for infants of believers may and aught to be baptized, though they can not by teaching be made disciples. 2. to that you answer to my first particular, thus I reply; That of Abraham & his circumcision, & of the Church of the old Testament I have spoken before: this now I will add further, that Abraham was an 
* Josh. 2● 3.  idolater when the Lord took him from beyond the flood and brought him into the Land of Canaan, and that it was the great mercy of God that made him a member of the Church. As for his faith it was not only a precedent or example to others, but was also necessary for himself, as the scripture teacheth, he believed the Lord and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. And being thus justified, he afterward received circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith, by which he and his seed had sealed unto them this solemn covenant of the Lord, to become his peculiar people and to have him to be their God, which at that time the Lord made with him, & so became the members of the Church of the new Testament being rightly understood.  
And where you say, that Circumcision was not a seal of Abraham's justification, etc. you give the holy Ghost the lie, which testifieth the contrary, Rom. 4. 11. As for your reason, that he was sealed by the spirit long before, it is nothing to the purpose, for the spirit was no external seal, as circumcision was. The spirit sealeth inwardly, and is proper only to the elect; yea to all God's people in Babylon, and so is no visible sign of of God's promises given to the Church visible, whereof our dispute is.  
And here remember by the way, that Abraham before he was circumcised had the seal of the spirit, and so was under the new Testament, as also others had. Esa. 63. 11. Psa. 51. 11. Hebr. 11. 4,- 39 that being the pledge and earnest of the souls of all the faithful in all ages of the love of God in Christ.  
But Abraham's justification in uncircumcision was a type of the justification of the Gentiles who are uncircumcised. And Abraham's circumcision after his justification sealed him up to be the father of all the believers circumcised.  
That Abraham's justification was an example to all that should be justified both of the jews and Gentiles, I grant, viz. that as he was justified by faith so should all others that believe be likewise justified. But as concerning Abraham's circumcision that it should seal him up to be the father 
Rom. 4. 11 ●. 13.  of all believers circumcised: the Apostle saith thus. * Abraham received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had when he was uncircumcised etc. that he should be the father of all that believe not being circumcised etc. and the father of circumcision etc. In which words I observe, 1. that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, yea of abraham's. 2, that Abraham was made the father of the uncircumcised believing. And the father of all the circumcised, his posterity the Israelites, and so was father of both sorts of people, and of the parents and children. 3. In calling Abraham father of the circumcised and uncircumcised, he meaneth 
Mat. 15. ●. Act. 25. Rom. ●, 4, 5.  of his spiritual fatherhood, in regard of the “ covenant. 4. He is called the father of circumcision, not only of believers circumcised, (as you say,) but of their infants also, seeing they were circumcised: and in this you deceive your hearers, by persuading them that Abraham was the father only of believers circumcised, & not of their seed, whereas Paul saith, he was father of the circumcision.  
And so circumcision had a triple use; one general, two special ●. Circumcision sealed up Abraham's form of justification to be a pattern of all the believers in uncircumcision etc. 2. Circumcision sealed up Abraham's form of justification to be a pattern to all believers in circumcision etc. The general use of Abraham's circum●…cumcision was common with him to Ishmael, and all the persons of his family, and all the carnal Israelites, viz. to seal him up to the old Testament, and to the observation of the whole law, etc.  
You labour by your new devised distinctions to obscure the truth and to shut out of the covenant of grace the infants of the faithful, otherwise ●e affirm that both believing Jews and Gentiles are justified and 
† Hab. 2. 4 Gal. 2. 20.  live by their faith, and that the one and the other have but 
* Rom-4. & 3. 24. 2  one way of justification, as they have but one Christ, and one covenant of salvation. And as circumcision was a seal hereof to Abraham, so was it given to have the same use to all that were circumcised, viz. to seal up unto them the everlasting covenant. And this did circumcision even to their infants whom we are to account as the justified of God by 
“ Rom. 3. 2●  his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ jesus,  
Concerning that general use of circumcision (as you term it) to be common with Abraham and to Ishmael, and to all the persons of his family, etc. is true, but the use viz. to seal him up to the old Testament, and to the observation of the whole law etc. you must prove, (for God had not then given the law or old Testament) It was the covenant in Christ that was sealed by circumcision, and not the law or covenant of works. And whereas it was the Apostles purpose to show that 
† Rom. 4● etc.  Abraham was not justified by works, he hath not proved it, but confirmed it by this your distinction of circumcision, if Abraham received it to seal him up to the old Testament, & to the observation of the law.  
Now for the place of Rom. 4. 11. which I am assured you will ground your assertion upon, I say it is both falsely translated & expounded: for (tes en acr●bustia) is usually translated, which Abraham had when he was uncircumcised, and this I say is a false translation: for this is the true translation, viz. which (is or was or shall be) in the uncircumcision, meaning that circumcision upon Abraham etc. was a seal of justification to all the uncircumcision that believe, and the end of his circumcision is the fatherhood of the faithful.  
Here you pick a quarrel against the translation before it was alleged, and so it pleaseth you to set down an other with your own exposition, to this scripture. Rom. 4. 11. and by your gloss corrupts the text. You 
〈◊〉 4. 11.  fault the Translator for saying (which he had etc.) and you put in (which is or was or shall be,) The text is, (which in the uncircumcision), the verb being omitted. Now I ask you what warrant you hav● more for your addition then the Translator had for his? the scope of the Apostles words makes it plain, that the Translator saw his meaning better than you do. For Paul speaketh of Abraham's justification by faith. Rom. 4. 3.- 11. asketh how faith was imputed unto him, when he was circumcised or uncircumcised ver. 10. answereth, when he was uncircumcised. Then preventing a double objection that might be made thus. 1. If Abraham received the righteousness of faith when he was uncircumcised, than his example seems to belong to them that are uncircumcised. No (saith the Apostle) for he received circumcision. 2. It might be objected, yet it seemeth that he received circumcision in vain, seeing he had received the righteousness of faith before: no (saith Paul) for he received it as a seal for the confirmation of his faith which he had in his uncircumcision. Then he expresseth the cause both of Abraham's justification by faith, when he was uncircumcised, and also that being justified by faith he received circumcision, viz. that he might be the father of all that believe being uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also, And the father of circumcision, not unto them only which are of the circumcision, but also unto them that walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham: etc. this is the Apostles meaning.  
Now whereas you affirm, that circumcision upon Abraham was a seal of justification to all the uncircumcised that believe, I desire this may be proved according as you mean. For the Apostle saith it not, but thus, he received the sign of circumcision the seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had: for how could abraham's circumcision that was applied to his particular person seal up justification to us & not to himself? seeing a seal is a particular applying of the covenant to the party that is partaker thereof. By this your exposition, you make Abraham's circumcision to differ from the circumcision of his seed, of which difference, the Lord spoke not a word in the institution thereof, nor in any other place. Yet you say, the righteousness of faith is not sealed up to Abraham's particular person, but to the uncircumcised that believe. Which doctrine is very strange, that Abraham's circumcision shall seal that to others & those uncircumcised, & not to himself being circumcised, you must therefore bring better proof hereof, else your confident affirmation will be accepted as the facing out of an error. As for the common acceptation & translation of Rom. 4. 11. which you say, is the mother of this heresy, it is confirmed in these words: but unto them also that walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham when he was uncircumcised; which makes it plain, that the Apostle understood by the righteousness of faith, Abraham's righteousness which he by faith apprehended, and which was sealed up unto him by circumcision.  
Again, all the persons of Abraham's family were not circumcised, because of Abraham's faith, but the males only, the males being assumed as types for to teach them figuratively the male Christ.  
So many of Abraham's family were circumcised as the Lord commanded: to the women it was not enjoined, and though Christ was typed out in the circumcision of the male, yet as it was a sacrament, it sealed unto them the righteousness of faith, and therefore in Genes. 17. 10. it is called the covenant, because it was a sign thereof, sealing unto them remission of sins and regeneration by faith in Christ to come.  
And the females were uncircumcised etc. to signify that those that had not the male Christ in them, were not fit to be members of the Church of the new Testamentment.  
1. The females were not accounted as uncircumcised, seeing they were comprehended under the males, and so distinguished from the uncircumcised Gentiles Genes. 34. 14. Deut. 7, 3. Esa. 3, 16. 2, I confess that such as are not in Christ, are no fit members of the church, but this seems not the reason why women were not partakers of this sacrament, but rather to teach that salvation should come by the male: but this alegorising proves nothing.  
Further you say, as it was with Abraham and his family in Circumcision, so was it with Lydia etc. it is not so, I show the difference in divers particulars. 1, They of Abraham's family were circumcised upon particular precept, etc. 2. They that ●ere males only were circumcised etc. 3. They that were circumcised of Abraham's family were all the males being of years though never so lewd etc. 4. As faith did not entitle the female to circumcision, and as infidelity did not deprive the male of circumcision so faith did entitle the female to baptism in the family of the Jailer and ●f Lydia. etc.  
To these pretended differences I answer, 1. that the precept of sealing the covenant to Abraham is not reapealed, (only the ceremony is changed) and that Christ hath given * a commandment for the administering 
〈◊〉. 28.  of the sign as the preaching of the covenant to all nations, and by virtue hereof were the families of the Jailer and Lydia baptized, and so it was with Lydia and her family, as it was with Abraham and his household, else was she not the daughter of Abra. entering into God's covenant, she & hers, as Abraham and his entered in & seeing the holy Ghost saith that the households were baptized without limitation, it belongs to you to prove, that the children in these families were exempted, or else that children are not of the family, or else we may not restrain the Apostles words contrary to the tenure of the first giving of the covenant which was sealed to young and old. For your first difference, I deny that commandment to be a particular precept to Abraham and his house alone, it was also to all believers of the Gentiles and their children, and so was it a general precept to the whole Church for the sealing of the covenant, (though circumcision was proper to the former Church, as baptism is to the church of the new testament) and so there needed no particular precept for baptizing of infants, they being comprehended under the general. For the 2. difference, that the ●males only were to be circumcised. I answer, this was according to the Lords dispensation, then to set his sign on the males, now on both sexes, but neither then nor now to restrain it from infants. Concerning your 3. difference, I ask you, where the scripture saith that any wicked persons were circumcised in Abraham's family? Dare you condemn that house which the Lord doth justify? see Gen. 18. 19 where the Lord saith, I know that he will command his sons and his household after him that they keep the way of the Lord, etc. and that infants being males, in Abraham's house were circumcised you can not deny, for the commandment is that every man child be circumcised, and Abraham did so, Gen. 17. 12 23. And therefore you must prove that the children in Lydiaes & the Gaylors' families were not baptized, else you show no difference. For your 4. difference, it stands upon an unequal comparison, & toucheth not the thing in question, you might know that faith, could not entitle the females to circumcision, when they had no commandment for it. In the Gaylors & Lydias families the women were capable of the seal by the ordinance of God. Again, concerning the males, infidelity might and did hinder from circumcision, as it did the Gentiles which received not the faith: and so infidelity excludes from baptism both males & females. As for infants they can not be said to be infidels or unbelievers for they are partakers of the promise, which is the ground of faith, else 
* Rev. 2●  were they under condemnation.  
To the second particular of my answer, you reply thus.  
I answer, that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abraham, and the other of Lydia and the Jailer according to the commission of Christ, Mat. 28. 19 1. Abraham and all his family by the Lord's commandment came under the covenant of the old Testament actually, & the males only were circumcised: but Christ doth not command all persons of a family in the new testament to be baptized, but only such as are made disciples. 2. the Gospel was only preached to Abraham's own person, but in the Gaylors' case Paul preached to all that were in his house, etc. 3. The gospel was not preached to Abraham thereby to prepare him to circumcision, as if thereby it should follow, that circumcision was a seal of the Gospel, for it is not so, etc. but Christ in the new testament commandeth the gospel to be preached to every parricular person, that is to be admitted into the Church by baptism, and so Paul did to the Gaylors' family.  
To your first difference I answer as formerly I have done, that Abraham and his family came not under the old testament or covenant of works, seeing it was not made with him but with Israel afterward by the Ministry of Moses. 2. Your comparison should thus be propounded: as Abraham & all his family, came under the covenaunt of God: so likewise do the faithful of the Gentiles and their families: & therefore as Abraham and his family were circumcised: so ought the faithful and their families to be baptized, thus holds the comparison, and thus it is against you: and you do but beg the question, in saying, that Christ commands not all the persons of of a family in the new Testament to be baptized: for this is defended against you; that Christ's commandment of baptizing, extends to the infants of the believers as well as to themselves.  
To your 2. difference I answer, that the Gospel which was by the Lord preached to Abraham, was by 
† Gen. 11. 1● 19 & 12. 15. Gal. 8.  him preached to his family. To your third difference I answer, that the gospel was preached to Abr: to be the means and ground of his faith, & circumcision was given to him to be a seal of the righteousness of faith, & therefore a seal of the Gospel which was preached unto him, and so the Gospel was preached to Lydia & the Jailer, & baptism given for the same use as circumcision was to Abraham. And where you say, Christ commandeth the gospel to be preached to every particular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptism, and so Paul did to the Gaylors' family. Why said you not (according to the point in hand) And so Paul did ●● Lydias family, & the Gaylors? Did yourself perceive that you could not show it so in Lydias family? Did you therefore pass by that example? Act. 16. 14. 15. Let the reader well observe these things and this dealing of yours. And to this your standing so strictly, that the gospel or covenant was preached●● every creature. I answer, that as it was preached to such as were received into the Christian Church so was it to Abraham & all the Gentiles, which entered into the old Church: and therefore in this is no difference.  
To my 3. exception thus you answer: Christ speaks only of such as to whom the gospel may be preached that are of a docible age and nature.  
I grant that Christ intendeth by his commandment that they should be taught, that are of a docible age, but with all intendeth it so to be preached to them, as it was before to Abraham, which was not to exclude their infants from the covenant or seal thereof. To this objection, how infants not being in the covenaunt can be saved, you answer: Either they are all saved though they can not come to faith by hearing, or that they are one of the Lords secrets.  
Can you speak of faith, to say they are all saved and not within the covenant of grace? but it is not your faith, for you hold it doubtingly, and being driven to a non plus, you answer as the Priests and Elders did to Christ concerning john's baptism, who said, we can not tell whether it be from heaven or of men: and so you make the state of children, one of God's secrets, but the contrary I have before proved. And here you might see (if your erroneous opinion had not blinded your eyes,) that you cannot believe that any infants shallbe saved, seeing by your doctrine you have no word to ground your faith upon for their salvation.  
To the last particular of my answer, you reply, saying:  
First, you confess that this place of Mat. 28. 19 is not uttered of Christ in respect of infants that they should be taught, and then I say, he never intended by this place that they should be baptized, etc.  
I will confess as much as I have spoken: In this scripture: Mat. 28. 19 Christ commanded to make disciples and to baptize them, the former I said, Christ intended to such as were unconverted, but yet so, as they receiving the gospel, their infants came also under the covenant: the latter, I did, and still do affirm to be understood of the believers and their seed, and so I have not contradicted myself, as you untruly speak.  
Next I say, that general rules shallbe expounded with their senses, and as impotent persons & infants shall eat, though they can not work: so infants shall be saved, though they cannot be baptized, seeing they cannot by teaching be made Disciples etc.  
Now you affirm infants shallbe saved, a little before you doubted whether it were not a secret, thus unstable men are when they err from the truth. But if infants can be saved as now you affirm, then tell me whether you hold them to be saved in the covenant or out of the covenant? if within, you cross yourself, and if without, show me what warrant out of the word you have so to believe? certainly 
* Act. 4. ●  there is no salvation out of Christ. And if children can be saved by the covenant, why is the sign thereof denied them? You separate those things that Christ hath joined together, (and yet you charge me therewith) and so you pronounce a woto yourself in saying, woe be to them that so do without repentance, seeing you deny baptism to infants, that are the children of the covenant which joineth the parents and the children together.  
Your conclusion of this argument, is shut up with some bitter and reproachful speeches: saying: You blaspheme the truth with your title of Anabaptistry. You are driven to most miserable shifts for your Paedobaptistrye, which you see can not stand without scraping together all the wrest and pervertings of the Scriptures.  
These speeches and divers others of like sort, which you use in your writings, take and apply to yourself, for the maintaining of your heresy against Paedobaptistrie; also they serve to testify the corruption of your heart, and therefore I will answer them with silence, praying the Lord to give you a sight of his truth and a better heart.   

The 3. Reason against baptizing of infants, answered.  R. Clifton 
Now follows the 3. reason.  
3. Reason.  
3. Because if infants be baptized, the carnal seed is baptized and so, the seal of the covenant is administered to them unto whom the covenant appertayneeth not. Rom. 9 8. which is a profanation.  
Answer.  
1. This reason seemeth to imply, that the seed of the faithful, is part carnal and part spiritual, (for I can not imagine that the author holdeth all the seed of the faithful to be carnal, and that the covenant appertains not to any of them, seeing so to affirm contradicts, Act. 2. 39) And therefore because the spiritual seed is not discerned until it manifest itself by outward profession, therefore may not be baptized, lest in baptizing them, the seal should be set also upon the carnal seed unto whom belongs not the covenant. To affirm this, first is to deny that which is done to the seed to whom the promise belongs for the wicked sake, & so to injure them. 2. this reason also serveth as well against the circumcision of the infants of the Israelites; seeing at 8. days of age, they could not be discerned, whether they were of the carnal or spiritual seed, & so the seal of the covenant be administered to them to whom the covenant did not belong: But as then the not discerning hereof, did nothing hinder circumcision to be administered to all the infants of the Israelites; no more now, can the not knowing of the spiritual seed from the carnal, hinder baptism.  
2. Touching the seed of the faithful thus I conceive thereof, that it is carnal and spiritual in divers respects; carnal, as they naturally descend of their parents: so are they all alike borne in sin Psa. 51. 5. Spiritual, in respect of the covenant wherein they are comprehended with their parents. Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39 in which regard also, all the children of the faithful, are said to be holy, 1. Cor. 7. 14. And thus considered, I deny the children of the faithful to be carnal seed, & do affirm that to such belongs the covenant and the seal thereof. Act. 2. 39 And though some of them in the sight of God be known for none of his, yet to us it sufficeth for the administration of baptism, that they be the seed of the faithful. And therefore as the Israelites circumcised all there children (though some of them proved to be carnal afterward, as Ishmael, Esau etc.) so are we to baptize all our infants leaving the secret things to God. Deut: 29. 29.  
3. If this be sufficient to clear us from the profaning of the Sacrament if we baptize them that make confession of their faith, because they so do, though they be not the children of God: as S. Magus. Act. 8. 13. then is it not simply a profaning of baptism to administer it to them to whom belongs not the covenant, but to do it to them which plainly appear to us to be without. Therefore if no man dare take upon him to say this or that infant is carnal and without the covenant of grace, it shallbe no profanation of the sacrament, if it be administered unto such, seeing we ought to hold the seed of the faithful, holy. 1. Cor. 7. 14. If it be objected (as some have done to me) that all the seed of the faithful are carnal and so to be held until they believe and make confession of their faith. I Answer, 1. If they take carnal, as it is opposed to the children of the promise: Rom. 9 8. 13. these two seeds are made so opposite by the Apostle as that the one can never be the other. 2. If by carnal they mean nothing else but that natural corruption wherein we are borne, that hinders infants no more from baptism, than it doth those that can give an account of their faith: seeing natural corruption remaineth still in the purest professor. Rom. 7. 23.  
And if it be replied, that their natural corruption is not imputed to them that believe: no more (say I) is it to infants, else Christ died not for them, neither could they be saved dying whist they be young.  
Lastly, if Abraham knowing that God would establish his covenant to Isaac, Gen 17. 19 yet circumcised Ishmael vers. 25. and Isaac knowing that God had chosen his younger son: Gen. 25. 23. with 27. 33. yet circumcised Esau as well as jacob, and in so doing neither of them profaned the sacrament: muchles is baptism profaned when it is administered to the seed of the faithful to whom belongeth the promise. Act. 2. 39 and thus having showed the weakness of your reasons against baptizing of infants, let us come to the 2. position.  M. Smyth. 
In the next place followeth your answer to my third Argument, which may be framed into this form● 
neither do ●ey the ●rks of the ●ivil: and herefore if ●ey be not Abraham's ●nes for de ●ct of the ●e, they ar●●ot the Di●els because ●hey do not ●●e other.   
The carnal seed is not to be baptized: for the covenant pertaineth not to them.  
Infants are the carnal seed. Rom. 9 8. Ergo Infants are not to be baptized.  
To this Argument you make answer in 4. particulars, 1, You expound my meaning, but I can expound mine own words best, and therefore by the carnal seed I understand children borne by carnal generation what soever though they afterward believe, for they are carnal visible to me, whosoever they be that do not show then faith by their works, † that do not the works of Abraham. Rom. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. Rom. 9 8. & 4, 23. Heb. 7. 16.  R. Clyfton. 
In the last part of your reply to my answer to your former reason, you said, that infants shall be saved, and now they are all carnal visibly unto you: can you say that they that are carnal to you, shall be saved? If the word teach you that they are carnal, how can you call them spiritual? Your reason seems to be grounded upon jam. 2. 18. john. 8. 39 in both which scriptures, application is made to them that, are of years and capable of instruction, and you applying them to infants do pervert the meaning thereof and purpose of the holy Ghost, who intendeth to discover the hypocrisy of vain professors, and to show who are true sons of God, viz. such as by a godly conversation declare their faith to be unfeigned. I deny that infants are carnal, because they show not their faith by their works. Those whom the scripture so calleth, are they that 
●om. 8. ●. 8.  † walk after the flesh and do the deeds thereof, which Infants nether do, nor can do, wanting actual power of doing good or evil.  
The former scripture that you allege to prove infants carnal, is Rom. 7. 14. The Apostle saith of himself, I am carnal, and so you conclude 
●●m. 7. 14.  thence that all that naturally descended of Abraham, and so of the faithful are carnal, and so to be reputed of us, and consequently without the covenant. Paul when he thus said of himself, I am carnal, was regenerate. And if you call children carnal, in that sense, it hinders not but they may be spiritual seed as he was. The Apostle calls himself carnal, in respect of his natural corruption and carnal infirmities wherewith he was compassed: neither was he wholly carnal, but in part 
† Rom. 7.  spiritual. And here is to be noted that carnal, is opposed to spiritual, in one and the same person, and is found to be in all that profess faith and are regenerate, & yet doth it not debar them either of the covenant or of baptism.  
A like Answer may be given concerning, 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. The Corinthians 
1 Cor. 3●  are called carnal, because of their infirmities and carnal works, as enrying, strife etc. verse 3. etc. Infant's cannot in this sense be called carnal, & therefore this scripture also is unfitly applied unto them. And here it is to be noted, that a people which were a true church and within the covenant and baptized, are called carnal, whereby we may see how impertinently this scripture is alleged.  
You say also, that you call children carnal as in opposition to the spiritual seed, that one seed of Abraham. Gal. 3. 16.  
I have said that carnal, as the Apostle opposeth it to spiritual, is our corrupt nature that * lusteth against the spirit, and is found in the faithful. 
Gal. 5. 17 Rom. 7. 2  Now to oppose the infants of believers to spiritual seed is no opposition: for such infants in regard of the covenant are spiritual, though by nature they are carnal.  
Concerning, Rom. 9, 8. see page 63. The Apostle proving God to be 
Rom. 9, 8  faithful, showeth withal, that though the promise was made indefinitely to all the Israelites, yet all that were carnally begotten of Israel, were not true Israelites, save only such as were the children of the promise, verse 7.- 9 but he intendeth not to oppose all the seed of Abraham naturally begotten, to the children of the promise; for than should Isaac be opposed against himself, for he was both the natural seed of Abraham, and a child of the promise: but this he teacheth, that although many be reputed the sons of God in regard of the promise which is made indefinitely to all the seed of Abraham, and to all that are called to be members of the visible church; yet all of those in the account of God, are not children of the promise, seeing many hypocrites are found to be in the outward visibility of the Church, to whom the Lord shall say, 
* Luk. 13. 25. 27.  I know you not whence ye are, etc.  
Touching Gal. 4. 23. it hath been handled before pag. 14. Thus I will here answer to your objection out of it. viz. that Paul doth not intend 
Gal. 3. 2●  to make an opposition between the natural seed of Abraham and the heirs of promise: but opposeth against the false doctrine of such as urgeth circumcision and the works of the law to be necessary to justification: and after divers reasons against this error, he illustrateth his purpose by an allegory which shadoweth forth two sorts of children borne of two Testaments as Ishmael & Isaac were of two mothers, the one sort that should seek after righteousness by the law, but they were no better than Ishmael, no heirs of the promise, but in bondage under the law: The other, should seek after righteousness by Christ, and these are of the covenant of grace; as Isaak was of the free-woman, which are heirs and free indeed, and this appears to be the Apostles meaning by that which follows in the Allegory; as also by vers. 21. And so it is to be noted, that to be borne after the flesh, (typed out by Ishmael,) is to be without the covenant under the bondage of the law which was given in Sinai, signifying that all such as seek for justification by the law, are as they that take up their habitation in the wilderness, and never enter into the land of promise. 
●eb. 7. 16.   
The next Scripture, is Heb. 7. 16. where the commandment is called carnal, so children borne of their parents (say you) naturally are carnal, etc. see this place expounded pag. 68 by carnal commandment the Apostle means that law that commanded the ordination of the Priests under the old testament which stood in frail and transitory things, as in Aaron's consecration, etc. Also this commandment or ordination of the levitical Priests may be called carnal compared with the ordination of Christ, 
●sa. 61. 1. 〈◊〉 45. 7.  (which was without all * external ceremonies) and not simply: for in other respects it may be counted spiritual as all God's ordinances are, whether under the old or new testament, and so this scripture rightly understood, maketh nothing to your purpose. And touching children you should observe, that as it is true, that naturally children are carnal: so is it true also, that the children of the faithful borne under the covenaunt, are by grace, spiritual, Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14.  
The covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually seize upon any infant of the jews in deed and in truth, and the place, Act. 2. 39 doth not prove that it did; for the place is to be understood of the offer of Christ and the new testament to all the carnal jews, and their children, etc. and therefore I say, to baptize infants, is to baptize the carnal seed.  
For this point, & for the exposition of this scripture, see p. 19 where also is answer to that which is here objected, for by this scripture it is plain that the promise appertained to the jews & their infants into which they & their children had entered when God made his covenant with Abra: & his seed for them were they in his loins. And upon this ground the Apostle exhorts them to be baptized: not saying, the promise is now offered, but thus, the promise is to you, that is, made or given to you and your children, (as the Apostle explaineth the same, Gal. 3, 16. 17. 18. & Act. 26. 6.) And to as many as the Lord God should call; meaning to the Gentiles which should believe and to their seed.  
Therefore, I say, to baptize infants is to baptize the carnal seed, etc. To this I have answered, that children of believers, though carnal by nature, yet are they spiritual in regard of the covenant, and in this respect to hold them the children of Abraham, though they can not show forth the fruits of faith, which are required of the elder sort.  
Why then, they are damned will you say? God forbidden, do you cendemne all the men that are not of our saith: and yet they are nearer to condemnation in the judgement of the scripture to you then infants: for Christ saith, he that believeth not shallbe condemned. etc.  
It is well that you detest the condemnation of infants: & if they be not condemned then are they saved, & if they saved, then are they under the covenant of grace in jesus Christ. touching others of years, according as the scripture showeth their estate to be unto us, so must we judge, but secret things belong not unto us, the salvation or condemnation of this or that particular person is a secret, nay we are not able certainly to determine thereof amongst such as be external members of the Church, because many that have not on their 
* Ma● 11-1●  marriage garment, may thrust in with the guests, & the 
† Ma● 1. etc.  five foolish virgins had lamps as well as the wise. But this is not the question, we reason concerning the dispensation of God's covenant in respect of us, which we affirm according to the 
“ Gen. 17● Act. 2. 3●  scripture to be given to the children as well as to the parents: And you deny it; and therefore by your opinion in respect of us no hope can in deed be had of the salvation of any infant: nay the infants of Turks and infidels will be in as good estate as the children of believers: for if infants be without the covenant (as you affirm) if we will speak according to the scripture, we must hold them 
* Eph. 2. ●  without Christ, and alianes from the common wealth of Israel, without hope and without God in the world; and standing & dying in this estate, to be as Turks & infidels dying in the state of condemnation.  
But you not able to shift of this Arg. & loath to confess the truth, do say, that the Scripture teacheth nothing concerning their final estate, except it be the salvation of them al.  
If it teach the salvation of them all, than I hope it teacheth that they are in Christ, and within the covenant. Christ teacheth that the kingdom of heaven is of such. The final estate of many professors of the faith being of years, is a secret to us, the scripture doth not open unto us the particular election of this or that man, but teacheth with whom God hath made his covenant, to esteem them as of his covenant, until the contrary appear by their falling away. Rom. 11. 20. And thus having explained your own meaning of your former Argument, you proceed to examine my Answer, saying.  
Now according to your exposition I should intend, because it is not discerned which children are the spiritual seed, which the carnal, therefore both of them must be deprived of baptism, lest by giving baptism (which you falsely call a seal) to all, it should be profaned to the carnal seed. Well suppose this were my meaning, what then?  
If this were your meaning, than my collection must follow: for my calling baptism a seal, I have proved that which I affirm of baptism, p. 37. 38.  
You except against this exposition two things, one that the spiritual seed should be injured by denying baptism unto it, for the carnal seeds sake. And I reply by giving baptism to all indifferently we should injure baptism, it is to be administered only upon them that confess their faith and sins and are made disciples etc.  
Your Answer stands in begging the question, I say it is no more an injury to baptism to be indifferently administered to all them to whom the covenant is indefinitely given, as it is to the seed of the faithful; than it was before for circumcision, or is now, when hypocrites are baptized. For we can not be said to profane the sacrament by administering it to them that appear to us to be within the Lords covenant, as both hypocrites & infants, until they break off.  
An other thing you except is, that this reason should avail against circumcision, seeing the males of eight days old could not be discerned to be the spiritual seed. And I insist that it was not then needful, that then they should be discerned to be the spiritual seed, for that carnal seal of that carnal covenant, it was enough for investing of them with that carnal and typical seal that they were the carnal & typical seed, and that they were Israelites or proselyts etc.  
Your answer stands upon a false ground, confuted before, I have proved pag. 12. 13. that circumcision is a holy seal of the covenant in Christ, and that your carnal covenant is a devise of your own. And where you call the Isralites the carnal and typical seed, I have answered and do again say, that though they may be called carnal in respect of their natural generation, or in regard of the infirmities hanging upon them, or some of them termed carnal, in respect of their evil works: yet the body of the Israelites considered as they were a body and children of the covenant, were a spiritual seed and holy; And it was needful that they should be so, else had not 
† Rom. 9▪ 5. Psal. ● 16.- 21.  the holy things of God belonged unto them, or they pleased God in their slanding.  
And show me that the Lord required anything of any person to be circumcised, but to be a male. But in the new Testament it is taught, 1. that Christ the male must be in us. and 2. that there must be circumcision of the heart. & 3. that we must attain to & learn all that the schoolmaster of the old Testament could teach us, before we can be baptized.  
I answer, that the Lord required as much of them that were to be circumcised as of them that are to be baptized, of the infants both of the jews and Christians, God requires only that they be the seed of the faithful: but for such as were of years and without the church, as under the Gospel they are to turn from sin and profess their faith in jesus Christ, that require baptism: so likewise before Christ, was the case of Abraham himself, & such of the Gentiles as would be circumcised, were to 
* Exo. 1● 48. Este● 17. Esra. ● 21. Ac● 27.  renounce their heathenish and idolatrous worship, and to profess the true God of Israel and his religion. In Ester it is said many became Jews, that is, addicted themselves to the religion of the jews, which is to celebrate or confess the Lord, these were called 
“ Ac●  proselytes, which signifies a stranger coming and converted to their manner of religion, as the Eunuch & such like. And it is not to be doubted, that the jews would ever admit into their communion, and to administer circumcision unto a Gentile, that did not renounce his heathnishnes and profess their faith: seeing 
† Ex. 12.  one law was to them that were borne in the land, and to the stranger that dwelled amongst them, & therefore as much required of them that were to join to the Church of the old Testament, as is now of them that will join to the Church of the new. And so I have showed you that more was required of them that were circumcised, then to be a male: for every one must be a professor, or the child of a professor: & so much is required concerning baptism & no more. And to your particulars, I answer that these things were also required of the Israelites. Concerning the two former; infants both have Ch. & were & are circumcised in heart, in that they are partakers of the covenant of grace● & we are to hold them partakers of Christ's benefits. Mat. 19 13. 14. For the third point, that we must learn what the schoolmaster of the old Testament doth teach. It is for such as are of years, and was required of the Israelites, and not of us only, as the writings of Moses and the Prophets do show. And where you say, this must be done of all before they can be baptized, it is your addition which you can never prove.  
Moreover if you by old Testament, do mean the writings of Moses & the Prophets than can not we † learn all that they can teach us whilst we live 
Cor. 13. ●.  (unless you dream of perfection with the Familists) and so by your doctrine shall not be baptized. But if by old Testament you mean Moses administration, 
Heb. 8. 9 ●3. Gal. 3, 25.  it is * abrogated; and seeing “ faith is come, we are not under that schoolmaster to be taught by such legal types and ceremonies, as were the jews. And so your doctrine is false howsoever it be understood.  
And whereas you wonder at me and at yourself that we could not see so evident a truth all this time: for mine own part I saw (I thank God) long since, and still do see your evident truth, (as you call it) to be a manifest 
Act. 13. 10  error. And further I see that God hath given you over to † pervert the right ways of the Lord, and to be the leader of others into heresy, and so for just cause, known to himself, blinded your eyes, and hardened your heart. This is that great comfortable state that now you stand in, God in his mercy deliver you forth of it.  
To the 2. particular of my Answer to your reason, you thus reply.  
1. Your distinction is without warrant, and I deny that Infants of the faithful▪ are to be considered in these two respects. And whereas you bring, Gen. 17. 7 & 1 C●r. 7. 14. to prove the latter part of your distinction, I have answered these two places already, showing your false exposition of them etc.  
And these two places of scripture I have likewise formerly proved to stand with my exposition, where it will appear that this is but a calumniation of yours, and that my exception is not frivolous. For first you will not deny that the children of the faithful, are carnal in respect of their natural birth, & then being proved within the covenant, in that regard they must 
● Cor. 7. 14  needs be spiritual, and as the Apostle calleth them * holy.  
To the third particular of my Answer you reply saying:  
The sacrament of baptism is profaned when it is administered upon a wrong subject, as to give the Lords supper to an infant of two years old, so to baptize an infant is ●●phanation, etc.  
That to baptize an infant is a profanation of baptism, I deny, and by sundry reasons I have proved the contrary, showing that infants are not a wrong subject, but a right subject for baptism. As for the Lords supper, the institution and use of it and the actions & duties required of them, that eat and drink at that table show it to be otherwise for the not giving of it to infants. But you say,  
As profession of faith shall entitle any man to all the ordinances of the Church, and f●rst to baptism. So absence of confession of faith shall debar every one from all the ordinances of the church in communion. And afterward, you say, Although I dare not say this or that infant is not under the election of God, yet I dare say, that never an infant in the earth is actually seized of the new Testament which is only attained by confession of sin and of faith, etc. Mar. 1. 15 joh. 3. 3. Eph. 3. 17. etc.  
To this I have answered before and have showed that profession of faith is required of such as were never of the church, and that with them, their seed enters in also: but that absence of confession shall debar every one from the orrdinances of the church, can never be proved, seeing there is not a like reason of persons without, and of infants borne in the church. Also, I have showed that infants are actually seized of the new Testament according to the ●enure of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, I mean so actually seized, as we are to repute them children of the covenant. And here also, I mind, that all infants to you stand in the state of condemnation, this is your Gospel, contrary to Gen: 17. 7. Act. 2, 39 & 3, 25. Gal. 3. 8. Gen. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 14.  
Concerning the Scriptures, which you allege, I answer, first, that all 
Mar. ●  three places are applied to them of years. secondly, in Mar. 1. 15. the Evangelist sets down in brief the sum of Christ's doctrine, the unfolding thereof doth reach to the faithful and their seed, as by his own action 
john. 3. ●  appeareth. Mat. 19 13. 13. Mar, 10. 14. In joh. 3. 3. Christ speaks of regeneration: without which none can enter into the kingdom of God and he speaks to Nicodemus that was a member of the jewish church, into which, as also into the visible Churches under the new Testament, many did and may enter into, with outward confession only, as did Simon Magus, though their hearts be not regenerate. And therefore this scripture speaking of that grace of God which is imvisible, is not fitly alleged for this purpose, where we are to judge of members of the church, not as they stand so before God in his secret counsel, but as they externally appear to us within God's covenant, by their confession, or otherwise.  
That of Ephes. 3, 17. is also spoken to them that were of years, who 
●h. 3, 17.  being believers, they & theirs were Christ's, of whom is named the whol● family in heaven and in earth. Esa. 3. 14. 15. & of this scripture also is spoken before.  
Though infants could hear and believe, it is nothing to me, except they can show me their faith, I say therefore that all infants are carnal to me. Rom. 9 8.  
If you be not carnal to yourself also, it is well. But thus you confess that you have no word of God that children can be saved. The scripture requires confession, (as I have said) of persons grown to years which are to enter into the Church, not of their Infants. It was required of the Jailer himself that he should believe, and the promise was that † he and all 
Act. 16. ●1. ●●ck. 19, ●. 8. 9  his house should be saved. And Zacheus receiving Christ, and professing his repentance, jesus said to him, * this day is salvation come to this house▪ Note, he saith not only salvation is come to him but to his house. And he adds a reason thereof, forasmuch as he is also become the son of Abraham. And therefore as want of confession in Zacheus Family, in Lydia's, Stephanas etc. hindered not salvation to come to their houses, no more shall it hinder any other families of the faithful.  
Touching that of Rom. 9 8. which you allege to prove that infants 
●m. 9 8.  are carnal, I have expounded before pag. 63. & have showed that it makes not for your purpose. And where you tell me that I said, that every infant of Abraham, and so of the faithful was borne spiritual as well as carnal, and that here the Apostle is contrary to my aser●ion: Although being well understood it may so be said, yet this was that I said: that I did thus conceive of the seed of the faithful, that it is carnal and spiritual in divers respects. And so I say still, nether doth this scripture contradict it: for those that the Apostle calls children of the flesh, he means not thereby all the circumcised, but such of them as became carnal by their works, as those in joh. 8. 44. and such as for their unbelief were rejected and “ broken off from the olive tree, until 
●ō. 11. 20  which time they are to be held the children of the covenant, so was judas accounted of, & by his fellow disciples to be one of them, although God in his secret counsel know them for none of his. And so Paul doth not deny the natural sons of Abraham to be accounted his spiritual seed in respect of God's covenant, but that of 
* joh. ● 41. 37.  these so externally esteemed, there were of them carnal sons, manifesting themselves in time through unbelief to have been in show that they were not in deed, as john speaketh 
† 1 joh. ●  of the hypocrites of his tyme. And thus these impossible contradictions as you call them, are easily reconciled.  
And where I said, that children of the flesh can never be the children of the promise, in that sense as the Apostle opposeth the one to the other▪ Rom. ●, 8. 13. You answer, that all the children of the Jews were borne according to the fl●sh, Gal. 4. 23, 24, 25. and so were carnal, and so are the children of the faithful, and yet as many of the jews were afterward regenerate, so many of the infants of the faithful may prove children of the promise, but I confess that Esau can never be jacob, etc.  
If you will thus understand, being borne according to the flesh, and so being carnal, you speak not to the Apostles meaning. And Abraham Isaac and jaacob & all the faithful are so borne, as you intent, of which point I have spoken before. And I have already answered to 
“ pag. 14. Gal. 4. 2● 24. 25.  that place of Gal, 4. 23,- 25. that by that allegory is described two sorts of children, whereof the one seeks by the works of the law to be justified, the other by the covenant in Christ, seek after salvation through faith in him, typed out by the two mothers and their two sons. Now take this scripture in his true sense, and it can not be gathered from hence, that either all the children of the jews were thus borne after the flesh, and in this sense to be called carnal as the Apostle meaneth, nor yet that the children of the faithful are thus to be held of us, to be carnal: For they seek not by works, justification, and therefore makes not themselves children of the bondwoman, I mean of the covenant of works, or of the law: for this falleth ●ut by an action of the parties themselves, that refuse the doctrine of free justification by faith, and seek salvation by the law. And this is that the Apostle reproves the Galathians for, because 
† Gal. 3. 3●  after they had begun in the spirit, they would be made perfect by the flesh.  
Carnal corruption doth hinder infants from baptism, more than men of years, because men of years make confession of their sins and their ●ayth, and so declare their mortification and regeneration, but infants can not, or do not so at all to us, and so with them we have nothing to do.  
But the covenant of God hath to do with them, and therefore we also, if we will walk according to it. Also your comparison is not equal, for infant's need not to make such confession of their sins and faith, as men of years are to do, seeing they are already to us within the covenant of God.  
2. The Scripture gives nether precept not example to require an actual confession of their faith of all that are baptized, except of such as are of years and to be added to the Church: but † examples of the contrary. 
● Cor. 1▪ ●. Act. 16. ●. 31. 33.  And therefore to make a general rule of such particulars: thereby to exclude the seed of the faithful, is contrary to the meaning of the Scripture.  
But where as I did affirm, that natural corruption is not imputed to infants no more then to men believing, you answer, That I cannot defend that without the opinion of universal redemption; And than if all infants of the faithful being delivered from their natural corruption, may therefore be baptized, than all infant's partakers of the same benefit shallbe baptized, even the infants of the Turks.  
As concerning that opinion of general redemption, I reject as an error: but as touching the imputing of natural corruption to infants; thus I mean▪ that as the children of the faithful are to us within God's covenant, as well as their parents, because of the promise made to the faithful and their seed: So of us they are to be esteemed of, as partakers of the promise, whereof * 
Heb. 10 17  the not imputing of sin is one. But whereas you would infer hereupon that infants of the Turks partakers of the same benefit, may therefore be baptized as well as the infants of believers, I deny that either they are partakers of the same benyfite (I mean the covenant in Christ) or may be baptized, if their parents come not to the faith; because they are not visibly known to us to be of the covenant, as the infants of the faithful are. And the Church is not to administer baptism but to those that are children of the covenant visibly apparent. As for condemning or not condemning, I leave to God. That which I speak of, is touching our question about the administration of baptism, that it appertains only to members of the Church and to such as come out of the world to be joined unto it. And seeing the infants of unbelievers to us appear not to be of the kingdom of Christ, because their parents remain still in infidelity, we cannot acknowledge them, nether have we any rule to admit them, unless some believer make them his children by adoption, or the like. And we refuse them as not belonging to the visible communion of the faithful as yet, and there ●e rest, without further searching into God's secret counsel. And thus I hope the scruple which you say remaineth is removed.  
To the 4. particular of my answer, you reply: That the external scale of that external covenant was particularly enjoined by God, and the knowledge of the reprobation of Esau and Ishmael did not hinder it. But now seeing we have ●o express commandment for baptizing of infants, but etc.  
Circumcision the seal of the covenant of grace was 
† Gen. 17. ● 12. Mat. 2●. 19  commanded to every member of the Church, and so is baptism now as before is proved.  
Concerning Ishmael and Esau, that their parents had knowledge of their reprobation and yet did circumcise them. 1. I do not find that that secret was revealed unto them.  
2. Christ knew that judas was reproved, yet eat he the  with him. The administration of the Sacraments is according to men's outward standing, & not according to election: & therefore the parents ought to circumcise them of their household, according as the Lord had commanded. And as Abraham did know that God would establish his covenant to Isaac; so he knew also, that it should be in Christ that should descend of 
* Gal. 3. 1●  isaack's line and not of Ismaels', in whom not only Isaac and his posterity, but all the 
“ Gal. 3. 8.  nations of the earth should be blessed: yea Ishmael, if he believed, and so many of his stock as should believe. And so the promise concerning Christ to come was to be fulfilled in the seed of Isaac and not of Ishmael or Esau. As touching ismael's & Esau's state, is before spoken of. And thus much concerning this first Position. For where you say, we have no express commandment for baptizing of infants, and all that follows to the end of this question, is answered before, yet I will note this here, that you end this point with a notable untruth saying. That we have an express commandment & many examples to the contrary of baptizing of infants. For there is neither any command▪ meant to forbid it, nor any example to the contrary, against it, as I have showed before.     

OF THE SECOND POSITION concerning the rebaptising of Elder People.  〈…〉 
2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptism.  
Answer.  
AS the former Position denieth the baptisig of infants: so doth this annihilate that Baptism which we have received in the Apostate Church, and establisheth rebaptisation. And this also I will show to be an error by proving the contrary, and then answer the Reasons hereunto annexed.  
That baptism administered in the apostate Churches of Antichrist is baptism not to be iterated, thus I prove it.  

I. Argument.  
If the Apostasy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that that it ceased to be the seal of God's covenant to so many of them as repent: no more doth the Apostasy of our fore-Elders so pollute baptism, that it ceaseth to be a sacrament to so many of them that turn unto God from their sins.  
But the first is true. 2 Chron. 30. 11. 18. 21. else could not so many of Israel as came to jerusalem have eaten the Passeover, seeing no uncircumcised might eat thereof. Ergo the second.  
If it be objected that the apostasy is not alike them let it be showed that the apostasy under Antichrist did make a nullity of baptism, & not the apostasy of Israel of circumcision: for Israel played the harlot so deeply, that the Lord denied her to be his wife, or himself to be her husband. Hose. 2. 2.  Mr Smyth. 
And thus having showed the vanity of your answers to my reasons against 
●swer.  paedobaptistrie, let us come to your answer made to my 2. Position.  
2. That Antichristians converted, etc. Your first Argument is framed thus. If the apostasy of Israel, etc. I answer that the apostasy of Antichrist is deeper than the apostasy of Israel, for first Antichristians are not called Israelites, but Babylonias, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentiles, in the Revelation, whereby the holy spirit of wisdom giveth us to conceive, that he doth account the apostasy of Antichrist equ●● to Paganism itself, etc.  Rich: Clifton. 
Whether my answers be vain, or your reasons heretical, let the reader 
●ply.  judge. For your answer to this my first Argument against your second Position, if it be granted that the Apostasy of Antichrist be worse than of Israel, yet this difference is but according to the less & the greater, both are Apostasy. But as concerning these names of Sodomites, etc. they do not prove that Antichristianisme is equalled to Paganism: rather they show that the Antichristians were in some things like to the Sodomites, Egyptians, etc. Was juda her circumcision void because the Prophet calls 
●a. 1. 10.  their Princes, * the Princes of Sodom, & the people the people of Gomorah? If this had been so, they must have been new circumcised. Know you not that the holy Ghost by these similitudes would manifest some abominable sin that he saw in his people wherein they became like unto the profane Gentiles? And the more to cause them to detest their sin, likeneth them to such notorious sinners, as had tasted of the hand of God against them for their sins. Wherefore as judah for her unjust shedding of blood and other filthy sins is called Sodom and Gomorah: So the Antichristians are called Sodom, for their filthy sin of Sodomitry, and such like, wherein they become like to the Sodomites: and Egypt and Babylon, because they keep God's people under a spiritual servitude, as formerly Egypt and Babylon had done the Israelites and jews under a corporal bondage. And the Antichristians, if they be compared to the Gentiles (which I do not remember) it is in respect of their profaneness and strange Gods: for as the Gentiles had many Gods, to whom they gave spiritual worship: so the Antichristians have their Gods, Saints of both sexes, and the Angels to whom they do worship and service. Notwithstanding all this their profaneness, yet did they confess God and jesus Christ to be their saviour, and worshipped him (though corruptly) professed also many of his truths, which neither the Sodomites, Egyptians, Babylonians or Gentiles did: And therefore are not comparable with the heathen in all respects, much less to be held the worst kind of Paganism. For in Paganism, it was never heard that God had his people, yet in Antichristian Babylon, the spirit witnesseth that he hath his people amongst them, and so many truths of God are therein taught, as thereby Gods elect do come to some knowledge of God, and to faith: so can none do in Paganism, by any doctrine there taught  
2. I declare plainly the difference between the Apostasy of Antichrist and Israel 
A●●.  in this, that Israel's apostasy did not destroy the true constitution of the Church; but Antichrists apostasy did raze the true apostolic constitution. For the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or proselytes circumcised, and so long as they retained circumcision in the Land of Canaan, they reieyned a true constitution though there apostasy was never so great, etc.  
This which you say, is a plain difference, is none at all, it is your false 
Re.  ground that deceives you. The reason of your difference will not hold, for if retaining of circumcision preserved the constitution of the Church of the old Testament, though their apostasy was never so great, as you say it did: then should the retaining of baptism in the greatest apostasy, preserve the Church's constitution under the new testament: but this you deny, ergo the other can not stand:  baptism by your own confession 
* Char 〈…〉 in the pr●f●  is the constition of the Church under the Gospel, as circumcision was of the old Church: Now if this be true doctrine which you teach, I pray you show us some reason why Apostasy more raseth the constitution of the Church now, than it did under the law: for circumcision was as corruptly administered by the apostate Israelites, as baptism is by the Antichristians. But your judgement of the Church's constitution fails you, in holding the Sacraments to be the constitution thereof, 〈◊〉 them appertain unto it, yet can they not be counted the whole constitution of the Church. And if this should be granted you, it would follow, that if Israel's constitution was carnal (for circumcision you say was carnal) so should the constitution of the Church of the new testament be carnal also: seeing baptism is an external ordinance as well as circumcision was, and both alike carnal in that respect. And therefore you must either renounce this opinion, or else grant that the constitution of the Church of the old Testament was spiritual, & then all your building is overthrown.  
But to prove that Israel retained a true constitution in their apostasy, you allege Hosea the fourth, saying; Though their apostasy was never so great th● their worship ministery and government, as it is to be seen in Hosea, 4. 6. 8. 12. yet they retained a true constitution so long as they retained circumcision in the land of Canaan.  
I answer, although the Lord call Israel his people, he doth it in regard of his covenant formerly made to their forefathers, & not in respect of their present outward estate. The Prophet saith, There shall be like people like Priest. And in verse 12. they are charged to go a whoring from under their God. How can this people be said to stand in a true constitution or covenant with God, that went a whoring from under their God? Hath Rome done any more than this? the people * perished for want of knowledge, 
Hose. 4. 6  and the Lord rejected their Ministers from being his; because they refused 
Hose. 4. 12  knowledge. The Israelites did † ask counsel at their stocks, and the spirit of fornication caused them to err, & they sacrificed to strange Gods, etc. 
thron. 13 ● King. ● 31. ●hr. 11. 14 ● Chron. ●●. ●ers. 8. & ●rse 9  “ jeroboam drove away the true Prophets, & placed Priests after his own devise. Israel set up an other government and * refused the government of the Lord, † had a false ministery and worship. What more can be said of Rome, then is here said of Apostate Israel? And what though the Prophet Abijah did not charge Israel with a false constitution, but with the other particulars before mentioned: yet that sufficeth to declare that they had broken covenant with God, which, what is it else, but to departed from their primitive constitution. Needs a man to say any more to prove that a wise hath violated the bond of marriage, but that she hath played the whore, and followeth other lovers? and so much have the Prophets testified of Israel. 
● Chro. 15  Azariah beareth witness against Israel thus; † now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, & without Priest to teach, and without law. And this was ●n the time of Asa king of juda. Also Eliah complaineth 
† ● 〈◊〉 10.  that the children of Israel have forsaken the covenant of the Lord: and this was in the days of Ahab, now it cannot be that they that had forsaken God's covenant could be a true constituted Church, so continuing, & also, which were without God and without his Law etc.  
C●n you say more against the Antichristians? and them you deny to be a true Church, and yet you justify Israel withal her abominations: but let us consider further of the difference you make between Israel and Antichristianisme: you say.  
That Antichrist hath not only set up a false government etc. but also a false constitution 
Ans.  of the Church, for whereas the true apostolic constitution was of baptized Disciples that confessed their sins and their faith, he hath foisted in a false matter of ● Church, viz. infants and persons unbaptised, and so a false form, etc.  
I answer, 1. that the apostolic constitution did not shut out the children 
Re.  of believers, as I have formerly proved. 2. I justify neither the matter nor form of Antichrists Church, neither their ministery worship nor government, they have in all these corrupted the ways of God. But the falsehood you tax them of in their matter & form, is the baptizing of infants, otherwise if they had baptized persons confessing their sins, etc. their constitution had been with you apostolic: such a deadly feud have you against infants, that to admit them to baptism makes a false Church. For the lawfulness of baptizing children you may be satisfied before, if the eye sight of your soul be not quite put out.  
Your saying that infants are no more capable of baptism, then is a fool or madman or pagan, Argues in you the want of spiritual wisdom, but that which you drive at, in this your bitterness against infants is to prove, That the Church of Antichrist is constituted of a false matter, viz, infants uncapable of baptism, and a false form, viz. infants unable to enter into the new Testament etc. And therefore to be as Pagans or Gentiles in the Lords account; and to justify Apostate Israel retaining circumcision to be a true Church. For your pleading against the adulteries of Rome I dislike not: but by these your Arguments, & manner of pleading, you shall never convince her, or ever be able to justify that adulterous Church of Israel: neither will this your reason stand good. That circumcision in the Israelites Apostasy was true, because it was performed upon carnal Israelites or proselytes the 8. day. And that baptism in Popery is false and in the Lords account no better then Pagan washing, etc. for as much may be said for baptism administered to the apostate Church of Antichrist, as yo● can say for circumcision in the Apostasy of Israel. And all that can be said is this, that neither of them both is in deed capable, in that standing: For the sacraments belong to the members of a true Church, not to apostates. But if to be circumcised the 8. day prove that Israel's circumcision was true in her Apostasy; what letteth the circumcision of the Edomites and Ismaelites to be true also, they keeping the 8. day, seeing they were of the seed of Abraham. The right of circumcision belonged to the children of the promise which was made to Abraham in Christ: And therefore when any of 
Rom. 2. 5. 2 Chro. 30 ●-11.  Abraham's seed did cut off themselves by infidelity, their † circumcision became uncircumcision: on the contrary, circumcision, though administered in Apostasy unto infants, yea * those coming to years and seeking the Lord, their circumcision was then profitable to them. And so is baptism in like manner to them that receive it in apostate Churches, when they by repentance shall return to God. But you drive all to this issue, that not the profanes of the apostasy, but the fittines of the subject makes the sacrament true or false. That infants are as fit subjects for baptism, as the infants under the law, for circumcision, I have proved in the former part of this writing.  
Your third answer. 3. I declare that Israel was the true church of God, or a member 
Answ.  of a true Church, though infinitely corrupt as well as juda in the days of her apostasy, etc. and therefore if judah retained true circumcision in her apostasy etc. surely the circumcision of Israel was also true.  
This is strange that Israel can be a true Church, & yet infinitely corrupt, can 
●●l.  a wife be a true wife & also a harlot? thus you may as well justify Rome & all Antichristian assemblies. The holy ghost calleth both * Aholah and Aholibah 
Ezech. 23  harlots: and you in their infinite corruptions instifye them to be true Churches, and particularly of Israel the Lord saith, † plead with your 
Hose. 2. 2.  mother for she is not my wife. And you say, she was a true Church, that is, a true wife, directly contradicting the holy Ghost. But you reason, If judah retained true circumcision in her apostasy, than Israel, etc.  
Then if either juda her circumcision was false, or that your comparison is not equal, your argument is of no force. The sacraments seal up God's covenant to his people walking in his ways, and not to them when they fall from the faith. That of Hosea. 2. 2. alleged by some is you say, to Prove Israel a false Church you thus answer unto. 
Hosea. ●   
I say it was after the Passeover of Ezechias which was in the first year of his reign. 2 Chron. 29. 3. 14. and 30. 2. and the bill of divorce was given the sixth ●re of his reign, 2 King. 17. 23. compared with 2 King. 18. 10. yet notwithstanding Hosea calleth Israel the Lord's people after he had prophesied of the bill of divorce ●● be given her. Hose. 4. 6. 8. 12. etc.  
Concerning the time of Hosea his prophesy, when he said, plead with 〈◊〉 mother, etc. I take it was in the days of Vzziah king of juda and about the 
* Perki● Specimen ● etc. pag. 3 † 2. Kin● 17. 23.  23. year of his reign, which was almost 60. years before Ezechias began to reign, and before the Lord † put Israel out of his sight. Now so long before the prophet was bidden to tell Israel that she was not the Lord's wife. This being so, I would know how you or any can justify Israel to be a true church, when the Lord denies her? she had broken covenant, & her divorcement (as you call it) argues as much: for men put from them wives that had broken the band of marriage, and not true wives.  
To that of Hosea, 4. 6. 8. 12. I have answered, pag. 152. Furthermore you say, when the bill of divorce was given, divers of Is●ael kept themselves pure from Samaritanism and went yearly to jerusalem.  
I doubt thereof no more than you, according to these scriptures, 2. Chron. 34. 6. 7. 31. 32. 33. and 35. 18. and 30. 11. but we reason of the face of that Church, as it stood in apostasy and so continued, and not of particular persons. In Babylon god hath his; yet the face of that Church of ANTICHRIST is apostate and false to the LORD. And so we say of Israel, that if we respect the outward face of it, it was a false Church to God long before Samaritanism began▪ And here I observe that you agree not with yourself, for here you say, no manner of sin made the Church of the old testament, a false Church: and yet you call it apostate, as also you do the like in your Parallels. pag. 14. and 26. And it is as much as we say of it: for that people that are fallen into▪ apostasy have broken faith and covenant with God. And if in any place we call Israel or Antichrists, a false Church, we mean no other, but a Church that hath unfaithfully departed from the LORD, and so continues in Apostasy.   

II. Argument.  
BAbylon in Chaldea (which was a type of spiritual Babylon, Reve. 18. 2.) though she did abuse and profane the vessels of the Lord, Dan. 5. 3. yet did not that make a nullity of them, that they ceased any more to be the vessels of the house of the Lord, but were brought with them of the captivity that came up from Babylon, to jerusalem. Ezra. 1. 11. Even so although spiritual Babylon have profaned the holy things of God, as baptism & the rest, yet remain they still God's ordinances to all them that come out of her, Rev. 18. 4. and return to the celestial jerusalem. And as these vessels of the house of the Lord need not to be new cast, because of Babel's polluting them: no more is baptism to be iterated to the people of God, because it passed through the polluted hands of the Papists.  
If it be objected, that they that administered baptism in Babylon were Idolaters and had no calling thereunto: I answer, that they which circumcised in the Apostasy of Israel were Idolaters, & so standing in that estate could not be fit Ministers of God's holy ordinances. And that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament, makes not a nullity thereof, the circumcising of Moses son by his mother Zippora, Exo. 4. 25. doth plainly teach: For as the Lord makes effectual his word to his people though coming unto them by the hands of a false Ministry: so doth he baptism to all that be his, though administered by them that have not a lawful calling thereunto. The sin of the Minister makes not a nullity either of the word or Sacraments, else should the efficacy of the word an●●acraments depend upon him that administereth them; which is no● so: for both have their effect from the Lord Esay. 55. 11:  
If again it be objected that baptiste was not administered in the Apostate Church of Antichrist to a fit subject. I answer, that the children in the Apostasy were as fit subjects to receive baptism, as the infants of Israel in the time of jeroboam & Ahab were to receive circumcision: seeing the covenant of Abraham (after the coming of Christ) belonged as properly to the Gentiles Gal. 3. 14. as before it did to the Israelites.  Mr Smyth. 
I answer many things. 1. this Argument is an excellent argument for the retaining 
Ans.  of idol Temples, the worship, government, ministery of the ecclesiastical assemblies of England, etc.  Rich: Clifton 
This Argument is not so excellent for idol Temples, etc. as you pretend. 
Re.  For how can you reason from the ordinances of God to justify the devises of men? will it follow, that because the vessels of the Lord, his sacraments and ordinances (though polluted in apostatical Churches, or by the profane Babylonians) may be restored to the right use, for which God ordained them, therefore so to reason, justifies the inventions of men devised to religious uses? you may show your wit in composing of your Argument. But with all you answer. That baptism of theirs was never appointed by God but is the devise of Antichrist.  
Antichrist devised no new baptism, but polluted the Lords ordinance ordained by God.  
2. I answer that the vessels of the Lords house were his own ordinances, & therefore 
An.  need not to be new cast. But the baptism of Antichrist is not the Lords own ordinance etc.  
Baptism retained in the Churches of Antichrist is as much the Lords 
Re.  ordinance, as the vessels of the Temple were in Babylon, and therefore needs no more to be new cast, than they. But you distinguish between the vessels of the Lords house and baptism, thus. That they were substances framed by art into particular shapes at the Lords appointment: but the baptism of the Lord is a compound or concreete ordinance limited in certain essential p 〈…〉 lars, not being a substance, but an accident in definition. Now if Antichrist h●● retained the essential parts of baptism I confess it needed not to be repeated, etc. but 
● is , ● neither ●tter nor ●●e ● invent by An●rist, but ●ng the or ●anc● of ●d were ●uted.  seeing baptism in Popery is not the Lords ordinance but Antichrists invention, * the matter and form being invented by Antichrist, the matter being a carnal infant, the form washing one into the covenant and cannot consent to the covenant or baptizing, without a contract, and sealing to the covenant etc.  
Here you confess that if the essential parts of baptism be retained in Popery, it is not to be repeated. But you make question about the parts, affirming that both matter and form of baptism in Popery is invented by Antichrist: you say so, but proves it not. Concerning the matter, it is before showed, that infants are capable of baptism, not as they be natural and borne in sin, but as they are the seed of the faithful, & therefore being the † children of God, and of the “ covenant, are not in that respect carnal matter, but spiritual. As for the form, which you say, is the washing of one into the covenant which cannot consent. I answer, that the form 
●zech. 16 ●. 21. Act. 2. 39 ●3. 25.  of baptism doth not any more stand in the Actual consent of the parties baptized, than the form of circumcision did consist in the assenting of the party circumcised: for there is alike reason of the form of these two sacraments, and therefore as infants of the jews were circumcised, notwithstanding by reason of their age they could not consent to that action: So infants of believers may be baptized, especially seeing they are but patients in this 
Mat. 2●  Action. This is the Lords ordinance, to † baptize the believer and his seed with water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. And of this are infants capable.  
As for sealing to the covenant, it is already proved that the Lord sealeth his covenant to infants. And for their sealing to the Lord, they do as much, as at that age is required, or was required of the infants of the jews circumcised. Nether is there baptism without a contract, for the Lord hath made his covenant with the faithful and their seed. For the Scripture describeth true baptism thus: The matter must be one, that confesseth his faith and his sins one that is regenerate and borne again. The form must be a voluntary deliverance up of the party baptized into the name of the Father, Son and holy Ghost, by washing with water. Mat. 28. 19 and 3. 6. Joh. 4. 1. Act. 2. 14. and 8. 36. 27. with Rom. 6. ●-6. where there must be a mutual consent of both persons contracting together. And that this is so, the form of baptism retained in Popery, yet teacheth etc.  
That the matter of baptism (as you term it) or subject, must necessarily be one always that confesseth his faith and sins, all that you have said 
Re.  hitherto, hath not proved it: the scripture saith it not: and the contrary is confirmed before, viz. that infants are to be baptized, although they can not make actual profession of their faith, & to us they are partakers of remission of synns and regeneration: seeing they are in the covenant.  
2. Concerning the form of baptism, I confess it is the sprinkling of a fit subject with water into the name of the Father etc. but your voluntary deliverance up of the party baptized, to make that action a part of the form of baptism, all the scriptures you city, proves it not. we confess that such as are of years must voluntarily offer up themselves to be baptized, and so were they that were to be circumcised: notwithstanding the infants that could not do this, were also circumcised, & so must our infants be baptized. The Lord said to his Ministers, baptize, but said not let every one that is baptized offer himself voluntarily thereunto, as he doth in the Lord's supper, say, take eat etc. it is otherwise in baptism, wherein the baptized are not agents, but only patients: God thus disposing that the infants of the faithful might be capable thereof, & sealed up for the Lords, as well as their parents. And it is to be noted, that the desiring or offering to receive baptism, is an action differing from the thing desired, & so not a part of the same. As for your mutual consent of both persons contracting together, it must be understood, of God with the faithful & their seed, for such was the contract or covenant making with Abraham, which continues still in force to all believers & their seed: & this precedeth baptism, & is no part of the external form thereof. Gen. 17. 1, 7. etc. Act. 2, 39  
And for that form of baptizing in popery, with credis & credo, etc. which others speak for the Infant, declaring (as you say) that there must needs be a mutual contract etc. You know very well how it is continued upon a blind custom & imitation, because such as were to be received into the church in the primitive times, and to be baptized, being of years, did make confession of their faith, & answered to such interrogatories as were demanded of them concerning the same. This the papists apply to infants, the questions being answered by the godfathers who are said to be brought in by Higinus before whose time, the parents presented their children to be baptized. This corrupt custom & apish imitation, yourself hath condemned. Yet now having cast off baptism itself, you scrape in the filthy Dungehill of Popery to advantage yourself against the truth, whose practice you know condemns your opinion of not baptizing of infants. If If therefore you will crave their testimony for your form of baptism, why despise you their witness of baptizing of infants, which is the matter. And thus much for answer to your description of baptism.  
Now concerning the outward ceremony of baptism, the Scripture 
Mat. 3. 11. 16. ●ar. 1. 10 Act. 8. 38 Mat 28. ●. ●. Jo. 1. 7 Act. 2. 38 ●. 3. 19 Gal. 3. 27 Rom 6. 3 ● Col. 2. 12 ●. 3. 5. 6.  thus teacheth, that the element in this sacrament is * water only, the form of administering thereof, Christ commanded thus, † baptize them into the name of the father and of the son & of the holy ghost. This is that which the Lord hath instituted, whereby he would signify and seal unto his people “ the remission of their sins, * and the engraffing into Christ, † the mortification of the old man and renewing of the spirit. This is the substance of this ceremony, and is found to be still retained in the Apostate Churches. And therefore, although it hath been polluted by the hands of Apostates, as the vessels of the Temple were by the Babylonians, and by adding of human inventions, yet is it in substance that which Christ ordained in his Church, neither the element nor form of administration changed, and therefore not to be iterated. Your third answer.  
3. I answer that if the Antichristians had baptized persons confessing their sins & their faith into the name of the son of God and the Trinity, it had been true baptism, though in the hands of the Antichristians, etc.  
First, you confess then, that the apostasy of Antichrist is not so great, but that in the papal Churches there may be true baptism, not to be iterated. That they baptized with water into the name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost, can not be denied, all that you except against, is the administering of it to infants; & so this second question is answered in the former: for if the infants are to be baptized, then stands their baptism good without repeating which they have in Apostate Churches.  
Lastly, where I said, that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament made not a nullity thereof, instancing the circumcision of the Israelites by apostates, and of Zippora her circumcising of her son, you answer saying.  
1 What say you to Cyprian and all that counsel of learned Bishops who concluded that baptism of Heretics was a nullity and decreed rebaptising.  
This I answer, that if Cyprian and those learned Bishops did err what is that to this purpose; for those examples that I have alleged are such as are recorded by the holy ghost to be done, not by such as had lawful calling, and yet stood without recircumcising. But suppose Cyprian & those Bishops found that some were baptized by Heretics and not in the name of the Trinity, (for seeing some denied the Deity of Christ, some his humanity, others held other errors about the Trinity: It is not like that they would observe the true form of baptism, but some strange form of their own devise; as some report (how truly I know not) that you baptize yourselves into the faith of the new Testament.) And so decreed not rebaptising, but baptizing of them that were not before baptized with Christ's baptism. Indeed it is recorded by some, that the Novatians, Arrians, Aetians & Donatists, did as you do, rebaptise those that fell to their errors, which had been baptized before into the name of the Trinity. Lastly, if Cyprian & those Bishops did err about this point of rebaptising, as in some others they did, I am no patron of their errors.  
2, I say, that the Israelites circumcision was in a true church and Antichrists 
Ans.  baptism was in a false, and that is a dissimilitude.  
That Israel in her Apostasy was not a true church, I have showed before: how you in this disagree with yourself, here I will set down your own 
Re.  words in your book of Parallels etc. against M. Barnard. pag. 14. thus you writ. A church falsely constituted (as in the old Testament was the apostate church of the 10. Tribes, and in the new Testament is the Church of Antichrist) is such a communion of men, where to God hath not given the covenant, the holy things, the promises, Christ for King, Priest and Prophet. etc.  
Also in pag. 26. of the same book, you answering such as plead that they have the Word, Sacraments, & conversion in the English Assemblies, have these words. I say it is but as a thief hath the true man's purse, and as the false church of jeroboam had, and as the Samaritans, Edomites etc. had circumcision & the sacrifices by usurpation. Here you have testified to the world that jeroboams church was a false church, falsely constituted etc. And now seeing a disadvantage thereby to your new erroneous opinion, you doubt not to call it a true church. This inconstancy befitts not him that will be a leader of others.  
3. I know nothing to the contrary but Zippora might circumcise her son, her 
An.  husband commanding her. For where is it said in the old Testament, that a woman shall not circumcises for Moses did circumcise though Zippora was the hand of Moses in that action etc.  
When you deal against us about baptizing of infants, you will have commandment 
Re.  or example, or else you reject it as Antichristian, now y●● being pressed with this Act of Zippora you show nether, nor any reason for the lawfulness of the fact and yet you defend it, answering, that you know nothing to the contrary, but Zippora might circumcise her son etc. What needs the Scripture to forbid women to circumcise, when for the adminisstring of that ceremony God gave commandment that Abraham the 
* Gen. 17. 7. ●om p. with ●ers. 10-13 ●osuah. 5. 2 ● 4,  master of the family should circumcise all his males, as baptism is now 
† Mat. 28. 19  enjoined to the Apostles and Ministers of Christ; the which commandments disable all others, whether women or men that have not such calling from God for the administeration thereof. That Zippora did circumcise her son by Moses commandment appears not in the Scripture, but that 
“ Exo. 4. 24 ●5.  she being grieved at her husband's neglect, did it: But if Moses ought to do it himself, the question is whether he might command his wife to do it. The nonresidents in England are condemned for preaching by their substitutes, and you descend that a woman may be a substitute to administer a sacrament. If Zipporah may circumcise in case of necessity at the appointment of her husband, why may not the midwife's in case of necessity baptize, by the appointment of the Priests? You pretend rule, but in this you practice it not.  
4. I yield that the Minister shall not prejudice baptism, if the baptism be the 
Ans.  Lords own ordinance, etc.  
In this we agree that the Minister, if he be not lawfully called, doth not 
Rep.  so far prejudice baptism, as to make a nullity of it, what is further here to be answered, is done else where.  
The 2 objection you answer, is, that although baptism be administered in a false Church of Antichrist upon an unfit subject, yet it shall not be repeated, no more than circumcision in the days of Jeroboam, etc. My words were these That 
●epl.  the children in that apostasy, are as fit subjects to receive baptism, as the infants of Israel in the days of Jeroboam were to receive circumcision. And you pervert my words and say, that I affirm, that although baptism be administered in a false Church upon an unfit subject. Is this to confess that infants are unfit subjects? to say, they were as fit as the infants of Israel? Yourself doth acknowledge that the infants of ISRAEL in that Apostasy were capable of circumcision. I said that the infants of the Antichristians were as capable as they, not approving of the state of either, but arguing that if the former might stand for circumcision, than also the other without iterating: the state of the Antichristians, being alike to the apostate Israelites: but I will come to your further answer, which is this.  
I say that the Israelites infants in there defection were the subject that God commanded 
Ans.  to be circumcised: so are not the infants in Antichristianisme, both for that they are 1. infants. 2. members of a false Church. 3. the seed of unbelievers.  
That the Israelites infants in their defection were commanded to be circumcised, 
Repl.  can not be proved, God is no approver of apostasy. When he gave to Abraham and his seed circumcision, he did intend that it should seal his covenant unto them, and that they should continue therein, and not apostate: and therefore (to speak properly) the Israelites in their apostasy could be no fit subjects, although upon their repentance the Lord let stand their circumcision. And so if the state of this people be rightly considered, the dissimilitude between their circumcision, and baptism in Antichristian assemblies, will not prove such as you pretend. Your reasons to prove infants in Antichristianisme to be no fit subjects of baptism, are of no weight. The first of them is answered in the former part of this writing, where is proved that infants are fit subjects of baptism. Concerning the 2. I might ask you why you make infants members of Antichrists Church, and deny them to be members of true Churches? but to let this pass, I answer, that this reason is of no force, seeing yourself confesseth, that if Antichrist had baptized persons confessing their sins, etc. it had been true baptism. To the third I answer, that the infants in Antichristianisme are no more the seed of unbelievers, than the infants in jeroboams Church were the seed of unbelievers: both were the seed of apostates, and that is all you can say of them. Their parents, (although apostating from many truths, and polluted with men's inventions,) yet were not fallen from all profession of jesus Christ, but still did and do acknowledge salvation by him; retain and believe many main grounds of faith, & excellent truths, & so many, as the Lord hath his people in 
* Rev. 18.  Babylon brought to the knowledge of God by those doctrines there taught. And, therefore thus I think of such apostates, that in respect of their outward standing they remain in apostasy, having forsaken many truths, pollute God's ordinances, practise the cursed inventions of men: yet professing faith in God & in jesus Christ (though corruptly) I can not hold them as infidels simply, but as the Israelites in their apostasy: and their seed may rather be termed the seed of Apostates, then of infidels or unbelievers.  
And whereas you say that the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ did ●● truly belong to the Gentiles after the coming of Christ as it did to the Israelits though both in defection: I deny it: for the carnal covenant belonged to the israelites the carnal seed of Abraham even in their parent's Apostasy, and the spiritual covenant did never appertain to the Apostate parents. 2. much les to the infants of them etc. 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved. and Gal. 3. 14. is not to be under stood of the blessing of Abraham to come upon any of the Gentiles in their Apostasy, but only being in Christ as the words are, also. ver. 7. and 9 etc.  
I speak comparatively of the seeds of the apostate Israelites and Antichristians, affirming the one as fit subjects for baptism, as the other for circumcision, because the Gentiles since Christ, have as much title to the covenant with Abraham, as the Israelites had. This you deny, shifting off with your devised carnal covenant. It is not for the spiritual covenant or Sacrament, to belong to Apostates, that I contend: I know it belongs to the faithful and their seed, though you say no. But this was the end wherefore I did allege Gal. 3. 14. to prove that the covenant is enlarged to the Gentiles and that they may now make as just claim to it for themselves and their seed, as Israel could do. And therefore did reason thus: If the children of Israel could chalendg right to the covenant and circumcision, their parents being in Apostasy: then might the infants of apostates in Antichristianisme do so: and this is all that I said, not justifying the standing of the one or of the other.   

III. Argument.  
IF the word of God passing through the false Ministry of Anchrist was of force to convert Gods elect in Babylon: Then is baptism passing likewise through their false ministry, of force to seal up God's covenant unto them; and so consequently not to be iterated.  
But the first is true. Apoc. 18. 4. for in babylon were God's people converted; other ordinary Ministry was there none, but that false Ministry of the Papists; and therefore it is apparent that God made thereby his word effectual to all them that believed Ergo etc. If it be objected, that if God should convert his people by an Antichristian Ministry, it were to give Approbation to a false Ministry, and to teach that men might lawfully use it, which is absurd. I answer, for us to use a false Ministry is unlawful: but it is no more absurd, or yet any approbation of a false Ministry for God to work thereby the good of his own people; than it was his approving of the evil service of joseph's brethren selling him into Egypt; because he used their Ministry for the saving of jacob and his household; for God can work good by an evil instrument.  
If it be still urged that the Antichristian Ministers had no calling to baptize: I say no more had the jews to put Christ to death: yet was his suffering available to save all that believe: and so is the Sacrament to all God's people available to seal up salvation unto them.  Mr. Smyth. 
I answer. First the word converteth none visibly unto me particularly known: so 
Ans.  can Baptism seal up none visibly unto me etc.  Rich. Clyfton 
Although God's people continuing in Babylon cannot so welbe discerned; 
Rep.  yet by their coming thensce, they manifest to me particularly, that there they were converted by the word, and so appear visibly unto me to belong unto God, and to be children of the covenant. As for the time before, we take no public notice of their secret estate before God, nor can do 
† Deut. ● 29.  for the things revealed belong unto us. Further you say.  
The mark of the Beast is undoubtedly baptism, whereby they are initiated into Antichrist, and receive his mark as Christ's servants in baptism receive his seal upon them, etc.  
Oh how fearful a thing is it to blaspheme: baptism is the ordinance of God though it was polluted by Antichrist: you may as well say, the word of God is the mark of the beast: for Antichrist did pollute it also as you formerly have confessed. Your mark of the beast reacheth very far even to the Apostles times, as the Ancients have witnessed of the baptism of Infants. And if this was the mark of the beast, than was the mark before the beast, which is absurd to affirm: for can the beast before it be in esse, make ● both great and small to receive a † mark in their right hand or in 
〈◊〉. 13. ●.  their forehead. And that this baptizing of infants was before the beast was, we have showed out of the scriptures, and it may appear out of Origine, Tertullian and others, that speak of infant's baptism to be in practice in the church, before their time, as in the former part of this writing is observed. And it appears both by the * Revelation. And that of the 
Rev. 13. ●. 10. 11. ●. 17.  Apostle in 2 Thes. 2, 3. that the man of sin arose not to this height and power to make small and great to receive his mark until there came a departing first. And seeing this mark of Antichrist was such as small and great, rich and poor, free and bound did receive, it can not be, the baptizing of infants. For than only the small should be said to receive it. And therefore the mark must be such a one, as shall agree to all persons “ great and small, rich and poor, bound and free, and be received of them 
Rev. 13. ●6. Rev. 14. 9  in that condition and state. And it must be such a mark, as they that worship the beast and his image shall receive by a † willing and actual consent, the which can not be applied to infants: for neither can they worship the beast or give voluntary consent to receive his mark in their hands or foreheads. 
An.   
2. Antichrists baptism false (as I have said) in the definition, is none of God's ordinance, no not in the hands of the most faithful Minister, but God's word is the Lords ordinance though in the mouth of the most vile judas or Antichristian, yea though it be in the mixture of a 1000 heresies.  
The same Lord that gave his word to his church, ordained also baptism 
〈◊〉.  to be therein. Indeed if baptism had been devised by Antichrist or any man else, it were not to be reputed for true baptism at all, but that baptism which is found to be in the Antichristian assemblies, is not Antichrists, the contrary is proved before. 
Answ.   
So that in this respect al●● it follows not, that God's word may convert in popery, therefore Antichrists baptism may seal, etc.  
It will follow, that as the word in Popery, so baptism in that Apostasy retained since the primitive constitution of the church of Rome in the Apostles days, & as the word in popery may convert, so baptism may seal them that are Christ's, being converted, for God can as well bless the one as the other. God's word doth convert in Babylon, yet is not the promise any more annexed to that outward ministery of Antichrist, than that blessing, 
* Gen. 1.  bring forth fruit and multiply, is by God's ordinance tied to unlawful conjunctions, but it pleaseth the L. by the ministery of his word & ordinance to effect his own work in all such as shall be saved, though through the hands of apostates.  
3. You say, If Antichrist had retained the Lords true baptism, etc. viz. 
Answ.  that he had baptized persons confessing their sins and faith in the Trinity, it should not have been repeated: But seeing he intendeth in baptism to set an indelible character upon them, which is the mark of the beast to confer grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth etc. hence I conclude, that he hath set up his own idol of abomination, and cast the LORDS holy ordinance away, etc. Ergo, his baptism is anullitie or rather a seal of perdition▪ etc.  
Yourself by your heresy sets up an idol of abomination, and casts away 
Rep.  the Lords holy ordinance of sealing his covenant to his people & their seed. And here again you destroy one of your reasons which you brought against the baptizing of infants, which was, 
* Character pag. 52.  because they were members of a false church. for you confess, that if Antichrist had baptized persons confessing their sins etc. it should not have been repeated. So that to be members of a false church shall not hinder the efficacy of baptism. Again if Antichrist intendeth in baptism to set an indelible character to confer grace, ex opere operato, to infants, and therefore setteth up his own idol (as you say) what say you to his baptizing of the Indians which are of years? For he intendeth the same thing. And yet his so baptizing of the elder sort, etc. you will not have repeated. So by your own opinion to set an indelible character to confer grace, ex oper● operato, is no good reason to prove the ●●erating of children's baptism, for than should it do so in the elder people confessing their sins etc.  
As for the promise made by others for the party baptized, I place (as a devise of man) amongst the accidental corruptions of this sacrament.  
Concerning persons confessing their sins & faith, whom you make the only subject of baptism, I have answered before. And here tell you that the scripture mentioneth 
† 1 Cor. ●. Act. 16.  people that were baptized; yet saith not a word, that they confessed their faith & sins. And you can never prove that all in the family of Stephanas, Lidiah, etc. did confess their sins and faith: but to all that you say here, answer is given before.   

four Argument.  
THose holy things, which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people, through the hands of profane persons are not to be rejected for the author's sake. Ezra. 1: 11, But the scriptures and baptism, hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people. Therefore not to be rejected for the Author's sake.  
If it be objected against the Minor, it is not true baptism but false that is administered in the Assemblies of Antichrist: I answer, though it may be said to be false in regard of some human devises used in the administration thereof: yet is it true baptism in respect of the matter, form, and author thereof, which causeth it to have a true being.  Mr Smyth. 
I answer directly that if it could be proved that baptism in the kingdom of Antichrist 
Answ.  is appointed by Christ, and that water is the true matter of baptism, and the true form is washing into the Trinity, I would yield unto you, but this you have not proved etc. but to deal something more fully, etc. ●. water is not the matter of baptism, but only the instrument. etc.  R. Clyfton. 
First I have proved that baptism which is administered in the Antichristian 
Rep.  churches is not to be iterated: but that Christ appointed baptism in the kingdom of Antichrist, I do not affirm; only this I say, that Christ ordained this sacrament for his church, which becoming Apostate & yet retaining the same, is notwithstanding baptism, because it is of God. And so I affirm that Christ is the Author of baptism, which the Antichristians pollute by their administration thereof, as God was the author of that circumcision observed in the apostate church of Israel. And therefore as circumcision received of the Israelites in their Apostasy, stood as the seal of God's covenant to so many as repent: So baptism received in Babylon confirmeth the promise to all God's people departing thence, and returning to walk in the ways of the Lord.  
But concerning the matter and form of baptism you charge me to have said in my answer to your second Argument, That water is the matter and the form washing with water into the Trinity. In calling water the matter▪ if so it had pleased you, you might have understood my meaning, viz. that I understood thereby the outward sign or element, whereof in Popery was no change. They used the same which Christ ordained. And in calling it the matter, I did not intend the subject or party baptized (which I know must be also one that believeth, or the seed of such,) but considering what Christ ordained to be observed in this Ceremony, I found these: water, and the baptizing therewith into the name of the father, etc. The former I called the matter or element wherewith the party is baptized, meaning that material outward sign, that Christ ordained in this sacrament as in the other, he hath done the like. For it was not in my thought to intend, that if the water be administered with this form of words, that it is baptism without a fit subject to be baptized: Nay I hold it an error in the Papists which baptize their bells, and will have bread consecrated (as they speak) to be a sacrament, though it be never received but laid up in a box.  
Concerning the subject of baptism or matter (as you term it) I will not contend: but in that you deny the Infants of believers to be fit matter of baptism, the contrary I affirm and have proved before.  
2. I say that washing into the name of the father of the son & of the Holy Ghost, 
Ans.  is not the form of baptism: for to wash a Turk, Jew, Fool, madman or Infant into the Trinity is not true baptism, etc.  
I answer, first, I know that forms can not consist without their subjects, 
Re.  & therefore I say, the form of baptizing is retained in Popery, applied to infants, though corruptly in that standing. Secondly, I stand not to defend, that to baptize an unfit subject is true baptism: but this, that the baptism of Apostates is not to be iterated when they repent and turn to God no no more than the circumcisio of the Israelites in the like cause, 2 Chro. 3●. 6. 11. 21. as before I have showed.  
3. That infants are to be baptized, I have already proved. And to baptize a jew, Turk, Fool etc. continuing in their infidelity, madness etc. we do not affirm it lawful, nor yet the baptism of apostates, for all such abuse that holy ceremony being guilty thereof, as they are of the body and blood of Christ, that receive it unworthely 1 Cor. 11.  
The true form of baptism consists in 3. things 1. washing with water 2. a new 
Ans.  creature, 3. into the name of Christ or into the Trinity.  
This might also be granted, saving that by new creature, you mind only 
●p.  such as are of years, and so appear to us new creatures by their profession, excluding infants, who also must be so accepted of us in respect of the covenant, whereof they are partakers, as well as their parents. Also the children of the faithful may be esteemed new creatures, seeing they are holy: and are so to be accounted till they manifest themselves otherwise, which may be the case of old persons, as of S. Magus etc. And the Apostle in the place alleged, speaketh of such as are of years; and by the speech of a new creature, implieth a special use and fruit of the thing signified by the outward sign, and so is not a part of the external form of baptism † as by 
Mat. 3. 11  man it is administered.  
But if an infant etc. be washed with water into the Trinity. I say there is neither 
An.  true matter nor form: And so all infants baptized by Antichrist etc. are to renounce it and to receive Christ's mark of baptism etc. and when they shall manifest a new creature etc. and then be baptized into the Trinity, this is not Anabaptistry, but the true apostolic baptism: and so Christ, john, and Christ's Apostles were Anabaptists, with you Sir. etc. for they baptized men that were washed before, a thousand times with the jews baptisms, Heb. 9 10 etc. if it be blasphemy to say Christ, John, or the 
〈◊〉  Apostles were anabaptists, though they were oftentimes some of them baptized into the Messiah in type etc. so shall it be blasphemy in them that call the true christians Anabaptists etc.  
Sir, if you mind well your comparison it holds not, for those washings 
●p.  under the law were proper ordinances of the old Testament, declaring their repentance † and cleansing from their daily sins, and pollutions by faith 
Joh. 13 10  in Christ then to come: But baptism (whereof we speak) is an ordinance of the Gospel, and that but * one, as their circumcision likewise was, and 
Ephe. 4. 5  therefore being once administered (though in some corruption) is Anabaptism, to be iterated. And it is such a washing as preacheth 〈◊〉 us the purging of our sins by Christ. And therefore it is not 〈◊〉 often washings under the law that can make men ANABAPTISTS: for you know in what sense people now are called ANABAPTISTS viz. for their rejection of the baptism of the Gospel which they have received, and baptizing themselves again, as you have put in practice. And seeing that which was administered in the Popish Assemblies, is Baptism; it willbe no blasphemy in us to call them ANABAPTISTS that have there with been once baptized and do recounce it, and take to themselves a new of man's invention. What else is here said, is answered before.  
And thus I conclude the confirmation of this fourth Argument, that although the POPISH CHURCHES be apostate, the MINISTRY WORSHIP AND GOVERNMENT false; yet the word and baptism therein reteayned (being the Lords ordinances) are not to be rejected with their pollution, but (purged from these stains) still to be retained, and with God's people to be carried with them out of spiritual BABYLON as the jews did the vessels of the Lords house out of Babylon of Chaldea. For the precept concerning Apostate Churches is 
† Hos. ●. Rev. 1●  to take away their fornications, and not the things of God polluted therewith.   

V Argument.  
IF Antichrist be not the author of Baptism, but of some human devises annexed unto it in the adminstration thereof: then are we not to pluck up the wheat with the tars, Mat. 13. 29. & to cast away that which is Christ's with Antichrists; but to separate from that which is man's invention, and still to retain that which is of God. But to baptize with water into the name of the father and of the son and of the holy Ghost, Mat. 28. 19 is from heaven, Mat. 21. 25. and not from Antichrist. Ergo, we ought not to cast it away, but those traditions wherewith Antichrist hath polluted it, as examples, K. josias, and before him K. Ezechias, when both the land and Temple were polluted, 〈…〉ng. 21, 7. & 23. 4. did not pull down the Temple, but appointed the Priests to cleanse it, who did so, and brought out all the uncleanness that they had found in the house of God, 2 Chron. 29. 16.- 18. and 34. 8. For in reformation of things, difference must be put between those things whereof God is the author, and such as are devised by man: the former is to be purged from all profanation, & the things still to be retained: the other quite to be abolished. This rule in all reformation of religion ought to be followed.  Mr Smyth. 
I answer, that as when the Babylonians had utterly destroyed the Temple, the jews 
Ans.  built it again: so when Antichrist hath utterly destroyed the true Church, then must we build it up again. And when he hath destroyed true baptism, then must we rear it up again, therefore seeing Antichrist hath abolished the true baptism, and hath reared up a baptism of his own, it must therefore be abolished, etc.  R. Clyfton. 
First I answer, that baptism in apostate Churches, though it be polluted, yet can not be said to be utterly destroyed, And therefore your answer is not sufficient to prove the rebaptising of them that were baptized in the Antichristian assemblies. 2. In rejecting of that baptism altogether, and baptizing a new, you do renounce that which is true therein, by your own confession. viz. To wash with water, into the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy Ghost, in that in your new baptizing of yourselves you repeat it again, which you ought not, if it be of God; and so indeed you retain not any truth in it at all.  
3. As for your comparison of a false Church or Ministry with baptism, it is not equal: for if you understand by false Church and Ministry, that which is devised by man only: then the constitutions thereof are not of God's ordinance; as in jereboams Priests, and as in Provincial or Diocesan Churches, wherein not one beam, rafter or stone, is appointed by the lord, and therefore can not be retained with the purging away of the corruptions thereof. But in baptism, (I mean that which is administered in Popery) there remains, the washing with water into the name of the Trinity, which you with the tars pluck up and cast in to the fire.  
4. Whereas you say. That in the false baptism, Church, and Ministry, the corruptions are essential and the truth only accidental, and those accidental truths must ●● reserved and iterated. I demand of you what be these accidental truths in a false Baptism, Church and Ministry, that are to be iterated? and how you prove such iteration of accidents in baptism: if you say, That to baptize with water into the name of the father etc. be an accident to baptism, then is it not of the essence thereof, but Christ maketh this applied to a right subject, the 
† Mat. 2●. 19  form of baptism: And yourself a little before have so 
* Carat pag. ●4.  written, ●ow if it be of the form (which gives the being of the thing) how is it an accidet? for you say, necessarily for having true baptism, we must repeat washing into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost, which are but accidents. And further you say, a Turk so washed is not baptized. How prove you this repeating of washing into the name of the Trinity & c.? and how doth the baptizing of a Turk prove this form of washing to be an accident to the ceremony of baptism? seeing without this washing with water into the name of the Father etc. it cannot be baptism.  
And though this washing or ceremony in respect of the party baptized, may be called an accident (as all such forms of things are to the matter whereupon they are induced) yet to baptism itself, I mean, to the external ceremony it is no accident or adjunct, but is of the very essence and being thereof, and without which it cannot be baptism. And therefore how you can call the washing with water into the name of the Trinity an accident, I do not conceive, otherwise then as before, I have observed in respect of the party baptized, else might the ceremony of baptism be for substance, without this washing with water into the name of the Trinity. But whether it be of the essence, of baptism or an accident, look with what warrant you do repeat it.  
For suppose I should grant as much as you desire, that this form of washing into the name of the Trinity were an accident to baptism, yet the Lord having commanded that accident to be but once used without repeating, how can you justify the iterating of such accidental truths (as you call them) for if it were of God in that baptism administered in Popery (as you confess) then can you not repeat it. Therefore your iterating of it, argues you do not acknowledge it at all to be of the Lord: And so you retain not the accidental truths in baptism as you pretend to do.   

UI Argument.  
AS God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. 7. which through the malice of Satan and all his instruments shall never be cut of: So he preserved both in the Apostasy under the law & Gospel, the seals thereof for the comfort of the faithful. And therefore the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptism of Christ, whereof they were partakers, in the Apostate Church, and devising a new, do bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel taking upon them to baptize themselves without all warrant from the word, for I am sure it cannot be showed that any did ever baptize himself without special commandment from God, as Abraham had for circumcision. Gen. 17. 9 or john for baptism. Mark. 1. 3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling. joh. 4. 2. Mat. 3. 6. Act. 8. 38. and 9 18. and 10. 40. and 16. 33. If it be said the times be extraordinary, I answer, the Lord hath left either example or rule or ground of rule, whereby we may in extraordinary times, have a sure warrant out of the world to inform us in every thing that we ought to do.  Mr Smyth. 
I answer by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16. 18. framed thus, 
Ans.  If the gates of Hell shall never prevail against the Church, than there hath always been accrue Church, and antichrist could never make the Church false: and so you of the separation have sinned most shamefully in calling the Church of antichrist false: verum ●rimum: Ergo secundum.  Rich. Clyfton 
First I deny that your Argument is of like nature, neither will your false 
Re.  relating of my words give you this advantage: for it is one thing to say, that God hath preserved the seals of his covenant, and an other to say, that these seals cannot be abolished through the malice of Satan. I know the outward seals and other ordinances of God might have been abolished by the malice of Satan, if the Lord would have permitted it. For as Antichrist, (Satan's instrument) hath perverted many of God's ordinances to abolish them out of the church: As the worship, ministery, Government, Censures, etc. so hath he corrupted the word and Sacrament of baptism: and if God had not otherwise disposed, could have foisted in a new form of baptism in the room of it.  
2. It is not the meaning of Christ in that place of Math. 16, 18. that there should always continue a true visible church upon the earth, which Antichrist could never be able to deface and corrupt: for the Scripture 
† 2 Thes. 3.- 7. Re● 13. 11,- ● & 18. 4.  speaketh to the contrary. But the promise of Christ to his church is this, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, that is, against his people that by a lively faith build upon the rock Christ: this promise the Lord performeth to every true visible Church, so long as they cleave unto him & continue faithful, and to his invisible for ever: even in the very days of Apostasy, Satan did not prevail against the elect of God. The Lord had some witnesses of his truth in all the time of Antichrist, as even Re●nerius the Pope's Inquisitor acknowledgeth, whose Testimony is cited by D. Fulke upon the Rev. 17. And albe it that there hath been always a true church in a true understanding, yet doth it not follow, that that church from which we did separate, was that true church, or yet that this true church, was always visible. But I come to your second answer which is more properly (as you say) solvendo.  
That the covenant is said to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existence 
Answ.  in the world in an established church: but in respect of the stability of it in regard of Satan's inalice etc.  
This answer of yours confirmeth my Argument and looseth it not: for 
Rep.  I did not intend in saying, the Lord preserved or continued his covenant to his people against the malice of Satan, that there was always a true visible church walking in all the commandments of God, but this I minded, and do say, that the covenant of God could never be cut off through the malice of Satan, but continued firm to all the Lords people in all ages and times, yea through the great Apostasy of Antichrist. You say.  
There was no true church in the depth of Antichristianisme, and so no true baptism. 
Ans.   
This consequent will not follow, for though the church of Antichrist was no true church: yet every thing therein was not so: for the Scriptures (though by them abused) even in that Church were the true word of God, 
●ep.  and so baptism in like manner was God's ordinance therein retained, though corruptly administered.  
I deny that the covenant, Church, or baptism was visible always. 
An. ●epl.   
Baptism, which was appointed to be a seal of God's covenant hath ever since the first institution of it, been visible, & that even in the deepest of Antichrists Apostasy. And the state of Apostate churches is not as the heathen, where is no appearance of Christianity, for in them remains some kind of visibility of God's ordinances either more or less, accordingly as they are more or less corrupted: For if all visibility should cease, they should cease to be called Apostate, and indeed become no churches.  
And therefore as in man after his fall in Adam there remains footsteps of that image of God, wherein he was first created: so in churches degenerate from the truth, remains some remnants of God's ordinances that were given to his church. The covenant is spoken of, and preached in those Apostate churches. And baptism likewise administered, but not in that purity and light, as they are in true churches. And as in the heavens, when the sun is shadowed with clouds or mist, the proportion of it may be discovered in the mist or clouds, & be perceived to be the sun: So is the covenant of God and the seal thereof, wading through those foggy mists of Popish errors and Antichristian superstitions discerned & seen to be from heaven, of all the people of God, whose hearts the Lord opens to apply them aright. Which if it were not so, God could not have his people in Babylon, or church in the wilderness.  
As you take upon you to set up a true church (as you say, but we say a false church) 
An.  & will not be said to bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel etc. (for you in yourself conceitedness will reject them as Heretics, if there be any that dare so say of you, forsooth:) So the Anabaptists (as you call them) do not set up a new covenant and Gospel, though they set up a new or rather the old apostolic baptism which Antichrist had overthrown.  
To pass by the manner of your speeches which well might be amended: 
Rep.  I answer, first, that for the setting up of churches, it is the Lords work and not ours, 
† joh. 10.  who gathereth his sheep into his fold, and we obey him in calling us out of Babylon to join together to walk in his ordinances, who also enableth us hereunto, accepteth us to be his people, and 
* Eph. 2.  to be citizens with the Saints and household of God. Therefore it cannot properly be said of us that we set up a church: but that God buildeth us up to be his Temple. And being thus 
“ Mat. ● 20.  gathered together in his name, we have the 
† Mat. 2● 20.  promise of his presence, and are assured of our standing, and that we are a true visible church of jesus Christ, (though it please you to call us a false church,) and doubt not to approve our calling against you and all our adversaries. And whereas you account it self conceiptednes in us to reject for Heretics such as bring in damnable Heresies: it were good for them, whom we so reject to look into their estate, and not wilfully to abide in their errors to their perdition.  
For the Anabaptists, whom you say, do not set up a new covenant and Gospel, though they set up a new baptism. What they do, both their writings and practice shows: but howsoever they persuade themselves to retain the old covenant and Gospel, yet is it not so; for whosoever receives not that Gospel and covenant that was preached and given to Abraham, and pretends to receive a Gospel or covenant, they receive a new covenant and Gospel. But the Anabaptists receive not the Gospel or Covenant preached to Abr. and yet pretends to receive a covenant. Therefore it is a new covenant and Gospel which they receive. For that Covenant which was given to Abraham, was given to him and to his seed, to the jews and their seed: but the covenant which the Anabaptists plead for, is a covenant that should be made to the parents and not to their seed, & therefore is not the same, but a new and strange Gospel, never heard of in the days of Abraham.  
Again that covenant that was given to Abraham was a sealed covenant to 
* Gen. 1● 10.- 13. The A● baptists ●ny baptis● to be a se● of the cov●nant, & indeed t● have no outward s● led covan● at al.  him and to his natural seed: but that covenant which the Anabaptists will enter into and receive, is an unsealed covenant, at least but sealed only to the parents and not to their seed: and so is not the same but a new Gospel.  
In my former answer I said, that it can not be showed that any man did ever baptize himself without special commandment from God etc. and you thus reply. I say, as much as you have to set up a true Church▪ wherein you answer not directly to the point, but shift it of, with saying, that you have as much power to set up baptism, or baptize yourself, as we to set up a Church: for suppose we have not this power to set up a Church, then how is your action of baptizing yourself justified? But how we have power, for that we have done, I have formerly showed, viz. that we have power by the Lord's commandment to * come out of babylon, to obey the truth revealed 
●ev. 18.  unto us, and to join together in the † fellowship of the Gospel, to walk in all the ways of God. This is that we can do, and all that we do is by 
Phil. 1. 5.  divine commandment, for if the Lord had not so enjoined us, our coming together should have been but an assembly of our own devise, and no Temple for the Lord. Now if you will make your argument (which stands upon comparison) answerable, you must bring like warrant from the Scripture, that you being unbaptised, may baptize yourself, or else that which we have done shallbe justified to be of God, and your baptism prove but a vain fancy. Further I desire it may be showed, that baptism, which is a part of the work of the Ministry, can lawfully, and by warrant from God, be administered by any, but either by extraordinary authority, as by john, Ananias, the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists: or ordinary, as by Pastors and Teachers. Or that a person unbaptised without special commandment from heaven (for ordinary rule there is none) may baptize himself, and having so done without any further calling to office, take upon him to baptize others. And to do this, I would know, if it be 
Cor. 4. 6  not † to presume above that which is written. For if you that baptize yourself (being but an ordinary man) may this do, then may an other do the like and so every one baptize himself. You that stand so much for commandment and example, show us either of these two if you can, or any sound reason out of the word? or else consider well, if that you be not fallen into that, which you would condemn in others, viz. the practising of an unwarrantable action. But you say.  
A true Church cannot be erected without baptism etc.  
If this be so as you say, then either that baptism which we received in the Antichristian assemblies is baptism, or else one that is no member of a Church may induce the form (as you call it) upon Disciples, to make them a Church, and this have we neither commandment nor example for. He that was the first Minister of baptism stood then a member of the Church of the jews, & had also commandment to baptize: but this new doctrine teacheth that one that was never member of any Church shall baptize & make a Church, & that without commandment from God. Now you say a Church can not be erected without baptism, because baptism is the visible form thereof, consider you; (that are so barren of proof for the administering of baptizing to yourself, that you can not show one good reason to warrant it to be lawful) if by condemning & rejecting of that baptism which you received in Antichristianisme, you overthrew not your new Church: for if a Church can not be without baptism, and you not able to prove your new baptism from the scriptures, which have rejected the old: Then is your assembly an idol: And so while you condemn other Churches unjustly, for false, yours proves more false than any.  
But concerning baptism, which you call the visible form foe the Church: I answer, 1. the form of a Church is common to all together. 2. If Baptism be the form, them it may come to pass, that one man may be a visible Church as he that first in the company baptizeth himself, he is a Church being baptized, for he that hath the form upon him, must needs be the thing form, And so Mr Smyth was a Church, when he baptized himself, which is absurd to think.  
But concerning the matter & form of the Church, this you have written, That 
* Paralels● etc. pa. 11●  two or three faithful people are the true matter of the true Church of the new Testament: and therefore have the true form or covenant of the new Testament, induced upon them. Again, speaking of the exiled English Church at Amsterdam, you say, that they have reduced the Church to the apostolic constitution, 
Differenc● etc. in the Preface.  which consisteth in 3. things, 1. the true matter, which are Saints only. 2. The form, which is the uniting of them together in the covenant. 3. the true property, which is communion in all the holy things. Thus you contradict yourself: here you teach us that uniting of people together in the covenant is the form of the Church. And in this writing, that baptism is the form. Certainly the holy Ghost 
* Act. 2. 3. 39 Ephe. 4● 4. 5.  distinguisheth baptism both from the covenant and the body. But to contend about the form of the Church, is here not to the purpose; seeing both you and we grant that a Church must consist of baptized persons, you contending for your new devised baptism, we holding that baptism which we have already received.  
Further you reason for the erecting of your baptism  
That when all Christ visible ordinances are lost, either men must recover them again 
Ans.  or must let them alone, if they be let alone till extraordinary men come with miracles and tongues as the Apostles did, than men are FAMILISTS, or if they must receive them, men must begin so to do. And then two men joining together may make a Church, (as you say) why may they not baptize, seeing they can not conjoin into Christ but by Baptism. Mat. 28. 19 compared with Mat. 18. 20 Gal. 3. 17. But it is evident that all Christ's commandments must be obeyed: Ergo, this commandment, etc.  
First for the visible ordinances of Christ, his Church hath right unto them, and his people are to have the use of them by such means and Ministry as he hath appointed: but every man may not take upon him the administration of these ordinances, but * they whom the Lord hath given 
Heb. 5. 4.  authority and office thereunto. God is not the † author of confusion 
Cor. 14.  but of order. It will not follow because the Church is to have baptism therefore any one may administer it when all are unbaptised. Thus might jeroboam plead for the * Priests that he made of the lowest of the people, 
King. 12  that it was a necessity seeing all the Priests of Levi were departed, and as at this d●y they plead in England for their unpreaching Priests, that either they must have such, or be without service and Sacraments, which plea, as we condemn in them: so do we the administration of the Sacraments, or other of God's ordinances without warrant from the Lord. And therefore they must be let alone till they may be had by that rule that Christ hath left us for the enjoying of the same. For this I am sure of, that the word of the Lord is perfect, and CHRIST hath left us certain direction for the practising of all his ordinances at all times. Now if the Scripture have not showed who shall baptize in the Churches arising out of Apostasy, then who dare take upon him to give direction? And though we are not to look for extraordinary men (which to do, say you, were familisme) yet must we look for ordinary means: men must not do that which they are not warranted by the word, though the thing be to be done.  
Secondly, for two being joined together in covenant with the Lord, to walk in his ways, they have * warrant so to do (if there be no visible Church for them to join unto) although I do not approve that every two 
Mat. 18  or three shall join together & so walk, when they may conveniently join to a Church set already in the ways of God; neither may they attempt any thing beyond their measure & calling, lest they fall into the sin of Corah etc. And as for two baptizing themselves or one an other, that can they not do without calling from God. And therefore you not having calling hereunto, & being as you say unbaptised, I pray you tell me how you are authorized by Christ hereunto, & conjoined into his name? The Admistration of Baptism is by Christ 
† Mat. 19 Ephe. 4. 11 12.  commanded to his Apostles and Ministers of the word, as before is showed.  
As for your reason which is: That else they can not conjoin into Christ, but by baptism. I answer, we may be joined into Christ, by being united in one spirit into his covenant of life. And though persons that were never baptized, be received into the Church by baptism, yet will it not follow, that such as are baptized in apostate Church's 〈◊〉, must any more be baptied, than they that being circumcised were recircumcised when they joined to the Church of the jews. And baptism is not our graffing into Christ, but the sign or seal thereof, and so are those Scriptures which you allege to be understood. And as you say▪ The commandment of God must be obeyed, and so this commandment. It is true, being done according to the order and way that Christ hath appointed, & therefore you break the commandment, to baptize yourself & others without commission from Christ, & are guilty of that which he reproved in the Scribes & Pharisees, 
* Mat. 15 3.  who transgressed the commandments of God by their traditions: so you do in this your new baptism transgress God's commandment, to magnify your own devised practice. Look well to it, the Lord hath thus pronounced upon such transgressors, 
† Mat. 1. 5●  In vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines men's precepts. & the Psalmist saith, 
“ Psal. 11● 21.  cursed are they that do err from thy commaudements: the which judgement of God you may behold in yourselves (if God so open your eyes) who of one company, are now at least divided into 3. each one refusing communion with other, & still increasing in new errors.  
But for the baptizing of a man's self, you say,  
There is as good warrant as for a man churching himself, for two men singly are 
Ans.  no Church jointly they are a Church and they both of them put a Church upon themselves: So two men may put baptism upon themselves.  
This phrase of Churching a man's self, is not the phrase of the holy Scripture, 
Repl.  it is the Lord that 
† Mat. 2● 19 Act. 1 46. 47. E● 4. 11. 12.  calleth men out of the world & gathereth them together by his word, and buildeth them up to be his Church as Christ saith. 
* joh. 10.  other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice. And they whose hearts the Lord openeth, do willingly obey his voice, and believing, 
† Act. 2. 42.  walk together in his ways as before I have observed. To pass by your strange phrases, the scripture thus speaketh, that the Eunuch, Cornelius and others received baptism administered unto them by the Ministers of Chr. but that they or any other, did ever put baptism, that is, (as I understand you) administer it upon themselves, I never read thereof in the scriptures: unless we should think that john B. did it, who if it were so, had his calling extraordinary from heaven.  
As two persons unchurched have power to assume the church, each of them for himself 
Ans.  with others in communion: so each of them unbaptised have power to assume baptism for himself with others in communion.  
These things would do well if they were proved. Concerning 2. persons or more coning into communion together, I have before set down what I think. And now for assuming of baptism, if you mean thereby receiving of it, (being lawfully administered) them I grant, that they which are unbaptized † may 
acts. 10. & 8. 12. ●  & aught to receive baptism in the communion of the Saints. But that 2. persons or more may take and baptize themselves or one another in your communion, I abhor as an human invention. As for the examples of Abr. and john B. administering the Sacrament upon themselves, if so it were, yet serve 
●en. 17, ●. 13. ● 26. Mat. 11. 10. 11. & ● 25.- 27. ●. 13.- 15  nothing to your purpose: for Abraban had a * special commandment to circumcise: so had john for his “ baptism warrant from God. But will it follow because these 2. administered the Sacrament upon themselves, therefore who list may consecrate his hands to that office? What is this ●ls that you plead for, but to overthrow that order that Christ hath ●et down in his Church, to make every one a Minister of the Lords Sacraments. Concerning the Proselytes, that they did every one circumcise themselves, is not proved by that of Exo. 12, 48. for it is said there: when a stranger shall dwell with thee & will observe the  of the Lord, every male shall be circumcised unto him. This scripture saith not that every one did circumcise himself, but that every male should be circumcised: Neither if the Lord had said, as the Translation is, let him circumcise all the males that belong unto him, had this proved that all the Proselytes had done it themselves; for it is said of josua, that the Lord bade him make sharp knives, † & return & circumcise the sons of Israel the second tyme. And 
〈◊〉. 5. 2.  yet will any think that josuah did himself circumcise every uncircumcised male in Israel? or rather, that the Lord commanded him to see that it were done. And so that commandment given to Proselytes was, that they should cause all their males to be circumcised, or else they might not be admitted as members of the Church to eat the Passeover.  
But grant that this was a special precept to the stranger to circumcise himself and his family, the Lord laying this upon him, he had good warrant so to do: but seeing the Lord hath commanded the administration of baptism to the Apostles and Ministers of the word, now it is to presume above that which is written, for any man to take upon himself, to administer baptism to himself or to others. Neither is this to follow the example of the Proselytes, if they had done as you allege: for then the Master only and none else circumcised, and he circumcised but his family. But this new opinion enableth any man, be he Master or servant to baptize himself, and also to baptize others that are not of his family. Note well how this example serves to your purpose.  
Howbeit for circumcision, I take it, that it was administered by the Levites after that they were called of office, because 
† Num. 8. 14.- 18.  they were appointed in the room of the first borne of Israel for the service of the Lord. And as I have heard, the Levites amongst the jews, do circumcise at this day.  
But one thing more I would ask you, whether by two assuming baptism in communion, you mean that two consenting together may the one baptize the other, at one and the same instant, or that one shall baptize the other first, and then he that is baptized, baptize him that was his baptiser, and what rule or warrant you have so to do? and do not with obscure terms seek to set a colour upon your errors to deceive the ignorant.  
As concerning the administration of the Lords Supper, to a man's self in communion with others, & prayer prophesying & praising of God uttered for a man's self as well as for others, of every unclean person washing himself at the door of the Tabernacle going to sacrifice, of every master of a family administering the  to himself & all his family, the Priest daily sacrificing for himself & others. All these proves not your desire.  
For as touching the administration of the Lords supper, it appertains to the Ministers of Christ to do it & not to every man. And by virtue of their office they do administer, and as they are members of the church, they participate of those holy things with the rest of the brethren: And this is God's ordinance: your case of baptizing one another, is not alike: for there he administereth the Sacrament that hath no calling, and he that is unbaptized himself, presumeth to set the seal upon himself or upon an other. Also in the Lord's Supper all are agents according to their estate and nature of the action: but in the receiving of baptism we are only patients.  
As for praying, prophesying and praising of God, uttered for a man's self as well as for others; this is God's ordinance that men should † pray & 
●at. 6, 6, ● etc. ●ph. 6. 18 ●. 2. 42. ●. 47. Tim. 2. 1.  praise God for themselves and others, and is not only a work of the ministery, (save in public) but a general duty appertaining to * all the brethren: but the administration of baptism, is appointed to the ministery. And there is great difference between our prayers and sacrifices offered to God, and the Lords Sacraments and word ministered unto us, the former we are commanded to do ourselves in our due place: the other is from the Lord unto us, and we are the subjects to receive the same by the administration of God's Ministers, and all these things are the commandments of God.  
Concerning those in the old Testament, that being unclean did purify or wash themselves, they did thereby show forth their continual & voluntary repentance and faith to be cleansed from their pollutions and sins by jesus Christ. joh. 13, 10. Neither did they this without the Lords 
Lev. 13. ●. & 15. ●. 27.  commandement. For were not the * purifyings of the unclean prescribed by Moses? show us the like warrant for the new baptizing of yourselves, and the controversy is ended; and unless you do it, what do all these examples prove for you? seeing all these were done by warrant of the word, and you have no scripture to allege for your doings. And for the Priests washing themselves in the Laver, 
“ Exod. 30 ●●. 21.  God so commanded. But the Priests (you say) washing in the Laver at the door of the Tabernacle was a type of baptism the door of the church. would you then have us to think that every one coning to the Church: should baptize himself, yea & that also every time they come to public worship? For if you hold thus, you might also thus reason from your similitude. But similitudes and allegories must not be pressed further than the intendment of them, & proportion of faith will suffer. That washing, no doubt did signify that such as come into God's presence to offer any sacrifices, must be clean and holy: & the water in the Laver might well be a type of the blood of jesus Christ, & of regeneration▪ in him, teaching that all the faithful (being made Priests unto God) should be washed from all their sins in the blood of Christ, and sanctified in him to the service of the Lord. And that therefore they should continually repent of their sins and have faith in jesus Christ, that so through him, they and their works & service, may be accepted of the Lord, and they in the end be received into his heavenly kingdom. But this will not justify your baptizing of yourselves, for besides that which is answered before, the Priests were commanded to wash their hands & their feet themselves, for such use as is aforesaid. But in the new Testament we are appointed to be baptized by the Lords Ministers, as hath been declared already. The same answer may be given to that of the Priests sacrificing for themselves, that they had the word for their warrant, and were first to offer for their own sins and then for the people's. And this was an offering up to God: but baptism is the Lords ordinance to be administered to us, and therefore in this respect also, your reason is not alike.  
Lastly, for that of every Master of a family administering the Passeover, the same is to be minded, as in the former instances. And seeing they were altogether to eat of one food, (which shadowed out jesus Christ and our Redemption by his death,) it lay upon the father of the family, not only to do the things of ministration pertaining to him, but to partake also himself of the same common food and banquet with the rest. Moreover, although the master of the family did so as then was appointed to be done by him: yet will it not follow that every man may now administer baptism to himself and others. The Master did that then for himself and his family, by the 
† Exo. 12. 3● 4.- 10.  commandment of the Lord, who was as a Bishop & a Priest in his own house, and besides him none in the house might do it. But after that God had to his church by Moses given laws and ordinances, and the Priests to do the service of the Lord: the 
* 2 Chr. 3● 17. & 35. 1● 11.  killing of the Passeover was performed by the Levites and Priests: which teacheth us that it is not in every man's power to be a Minister of the Lords ordinances, save they that have calling thereunto. And therefore I marvel that you will bring in so many instances so unfitting to your practice: all which examples might have taught you rather the unlawfulness of your action, they being all done by warrant, & yours without altogether.  
Lastly, you say, A man cannot baptize others into the Church himself being out of the church. Then I pray you Sir, resolve me how you can baptize yourself into the church being out of it, yea and where there was no church? or how you could baptize others, yourself being out of the Church? or how two can baptize themselves to be a church that are unbaptized and without the church? And what conclusion is this to say, A man can not baptize others into the Church himself being unbaptized: therefore it is lawful for a man to baptize himself with others in communion? If you have no better warrant for the practice of your doings, than these reasons which you have already alleged, youn●ed not to boast of your Plerophory of your Practice. But what is now become of your plerophory and full persuasion about it, seeing you have already changed your mind againconcerning your baptizing of yourself, & for this cause & other the like matters, are by some of your people excommunicate,. It were good for you to remember and keep that saying of the Apostle, It is good always to be zealous in a good thing. Gal. 4. 18.   

Mr Smiths' Reasons for Anabaptism of Elder people, Answered.  R. Clyfton 
THus having set down Reasons to prove that Apostates or Antichristians converted are not to be rebaptized: let us come to the examination of the reasons alleged to the contrary, the first whereof is this.  

1. Because Churches are to be constituted now after the defection of Antichrist, as they were first erected by the Apostles: but in the constitution of Churches the Apostles receved in the members by baptism. Ergo, so must we do now.  
Answer  
The estate and constitution of people now, is not a like to the state of the Gentiles or jews in the Apostles times, they differ in divers respects. First l the people then both of jews and Gentiles never had been themselves, nor were ever of the posterity of those that had been members of the Church of Christ under the Gospel: seeing then was the first planting of Evangelical Churches. But we are now the posteriety of such parents as were members of the Church planted by the Apostles, else could we not have Apostated 2. That people which the Apostles gathered into Churches were never baptized: And baptism coming in steed of circumcision, and being a seal of our entering into God's covenant; it was fit that they which believed and became the seed of Abrah: should so enter in to covenant they & their seed as he & his seed entered, that is, as he & his, were received in by circumcision: so they & theirs should be receved in by baptism: Act. 2. 38. 41. & 8. 38. But we are a people that are already baptized, & the seed of them that were baptized, & had received the Gospel. And (although through Antichrists deceivableness both we and they were tainted with many corruptions) yet had they or might have in that Apostasy, and so we also, so much faith, as thereby both we and they might become the people of God. Apoc. 18. 4.  
And concerning the constitution of Churches, here it is to be noted, that the constitution of Churches set down by the Apostles was by the immediate direction of the H. Ghost, And so serveth for a continual rule of establishing Churches to th'end of the world: which form or frame laid down by them, no man hath power to alter or change. 1. Cor. 4. 14. 1, Tim. 6. 14. But the constituting of Churches now after the defection of Antichrist, ma●● more properly be called a repairing, than a constituting of Churches; which through Apostasy have been ruinated, or a gathering together of the dispersed sheep of Israel into such forms or shapes of visible Churches (the pattern whereof is showed unto us in the word) For (as before hath been noted) our state is not as theirs was that were the first constituted Churches: And so it will not follow (as is alleged) that the receiving in of members into our Churches necessarily must be by baptism, as in the primitive time it was: except only of such persons as have not been baptized before.  
And herein I take it, lieth the deceat of this Argument that it putteth no difference between the people of God coming ou● of Babylon, and them that came to the faith from amongst the Gentiles, equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilism, the one being an apostate Church, the other no Church, the one partaker of the word & sacraments (though with much corruption) the other partaker of neither at all: the one professing Christ & teaching many truths of God, & so many as the elect thereby might come to faith, Apo: 18. 4. The other neither professing Christ, nor teaching any truth of God, whereby any might be converted to Christ, and become God's people, in that estate of Gentilism.  
And thus having made plain the different estate of the first planted Churches and ours in Apostasy, I answer 1. That Churches now are to be constituted. (if repairing be not a fit speech) as in the Apostles times, & that all such as are received in as members being unbaptised, must be received in by baptism: but for such, as were baptized in Apostate Churches, their▪ repentance is sufficient without rebaptisation, as it was to the Apostate Israelites, who upon their repentance & returning to jerusalem were received of the Church, without any new circumcision. And therefore to add a second baptism, with the Anabaptists, is to Apostate from Christ, and not to enter into his covenant.  
And in that the Apostles received in members by baptism, they could do no otherwise, seeing the whole world was unbaptised: but if they had met with any that before had been baptized into the name of Christ, as they that received the baptism of john, and as we are, I make no question they did not, nor would not have rebaptized them. And therefore the conclusion will not follow that we are now to receive in by baptism, them that are already baptized.  Mr Smyth. 
As in the former point for baptizing of infants, you are compelled to run to the old Testament: and from thence to fetch the chief corner stone of your building, viz. from circumcision: So in this second point you utterly forsake the new testament of Christ, etc. and set us again to school to Moses, as if Christ had not been faithful enough to teach us his new Testament, but we must go learn the new Testament, of the old Testament, Christ of Moses, the Gospel of the law. etc.  Rich: Clifton. 
Before you come to answer my exception against your reason, you prefix 
Answ.  as it were for a ground, certain things which you entreat me and all the Separation, especeally the leaders, well to weigh and ponder, and not to be ashamed to learn of their inferiors. In which your great observation. 1. you charge me to be compelled to run to the old Testament etc. What my answer is to this your reason shallbe justified. Now where you except about the former point for baptizing of infants against my running to the old Testament to fetch my chief corner stone, etc. If I have done evil herein, bear witness of it: but if I have followed the example of Christ and his Apostles, who proved that which they taught by the Scriptures of the old Testament, why impute you this unto me to disgrace? search these 
* Mat. ● 23. & 2. ● 15. 28. & 3. & 22. ● 32. Joh. 23. & 5. 3● Luk. 24. 2● Act. 2. 2● & 3. 22. & 4: 25. 26. & 18. 28. Ro● 4, 3, 6. & 7. 9 & ● 11 with d●vers other  places quoted in the margin, and see if the things of the new testament, were not proved out of the old. Yet notwithstanding I have used other reasons from the Scriptures of the new Testament, to prove the baptizing of infants, as in my answer is to be seen. But my corner stone (as you please to call it) fetched from the old testament, is so ponderous, as you can not remove it.  
Concerning the forsaking of the new Testament, it is not I, but yourself Mr Smyth that sins therein, by casting the children of believers out of the covenant of salvation. And as touching the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, Christ himself set us to school to learn of them the things 
† joh. 5. 39.  that are witten of him: and yet this you fault in me as if it were not lawful to prove doctrines and ordinances of the new Testament, out of Moses & 
Character pag. 44.  the Prophets. But I pray you Sir, that finds fault to be set again to the school to Moses, why say you “ we must attain to and learn all that the schoolmaster of the old testament could teach us. Do not you herein set us to school to Moses? But it seems you are past Moses teaching, I would wish you were not past Christ's also. The old Testament is not so abrogated, that withal, the † writings of Moses and of the 
2 Tim. 3. ●.- 17. Pet. 1. 9- 21.  Prophets, cease to be in force to teach us that live under the Gospel. And if they be in force to teach, then are we to learn and to be taught by them.  
As for Christ his faithfulness in teaching us his new Testament, (which you think is diminished, if we labour to prove any of the ordinances thereof from the Scriptures of the old Testament) know you, that we hold Christ 
* Heb. 3. 2.  to be faithful to him that hath appointed, even as Moses in all his house. And yet no disparagement to him or the new Testament, (but rather an honour) to prove the parts and observances thereof, from Moses and the Prophets. For he that bade us Search the scriptures, did also himself to the two disciples that went to Emaus, 
“ Luk. 24. ●●.  begin at Moses and at all the Prophets and interpreted unto them in all the Scriptures the things which were written of him. Which practice of Christ, as it doth teach us that we may learn Christ and the new Testament out of Moses and the Scriptures of the old Testament: so doth it manifest his faithfulness, that taught and fulfilled all that was prophesied of him, not imposing upon his church any new doctrine not heard of before. Baptism under the Gospel is proved out of the old Testaments the jews did not think it strange to be at the coming of the Messiah, joh. 1. 25. And Mr. Smyth saith, that the jews baptisms were into the Messiah to come in type. Ergo, our baptism being the thing typed, must needs have warrant from the old Testament, and then it is no disgrace to go to school to Moses to learn it.  
And first I would know why we may not as well with the Papists, fetch one high 
Repl.  Priest from Moses, succession in the ministery from Moses, succession in the Church from Moses, as a succession in baptism from Moses: and in effect you fetch a succession of the Church from Rome, for in fetching a succession of Baptisms from Rome, which is the form of the church, yea and in fetching a succession of the matter of the church, which is the seed of the Parents baptized, you of necessity make the church of Rome a true Church.  
First, for the Priesthood of Moses, the Ceremonies and such like ordinances 
Answ.  of the church under the old Testament, they are 
† Heb. 7. 12. etc. & cha. ●. & ch. 9 ● cha. 10. Col. 2. 16. 17.  removed by the coming of jesus Christ, and therefore there cannot be any succession thereof under the Gospel, save in Christ: but of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham, and sealed to him and his seed before the law was given, is no abrogation thereof. There is an everlasting continuance (which you call a succession) not only in the Church of the old Testament, but also under the Gospel as the Apostles do 
* Gal. 3. 8▪ 9 Act. 2. 3.  witness, as also 
“ Mat. 28. 19  a continuance of the sealing of the same. And therefore we must plead such a succession both of the covenant and sealing thereof from our father Abraham: seeing it is the 
† Gal. 3. 8. 14.- 17. 28. & 4. 28.  same wherein we of the Gentiles are comprehended.  
And this difference between this Covenant and the law and ordinances of the old Testament, if it please you to take notice of, will answer your question about succession. Yet I would not have you mistake me, for although I hold in this sense a continual succession of the people of God partakers of this covenant of salvation, I affirm not that there hath been always, and at all times known established churches, keeping sound all the ordinances of Christ, and making visible profession thereof. In the Apostasy of Israel the Lord had his seven thousand that never bowed their knee to Baal, to whom this covenant belonged, and so had he in 
“ Rev. 18. 4.  antichristianism.  
Again, we fetch not a succession of Baptism from Moses, otherwise then the Apostles have taught us. Col. 2. 10.- 12. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. 1 Pet. 3. 20. 21. The sealing of the covenant was commanded to Abraham, and never repealed (save only the outward sign changed, as before is said.) And as we fetch no otherwise succession from Moses or the old Testament, then hath been said: No more do we succession of the ministery, or of any other ordinance of Christ, but in like manner and upon like warrant. 2. Concerning fetching of succession of our church from Rome because of our Baptism: I answer, 1. that Baptism, as also the Scriptures were given to the Church of Rome when she was a true church and she retaining them in her Apostasy, we receive them as Christ word and baptism, though continued through her corrupt ministery and estate. 2. If (according to your terming) succession of Baptism be granted, (being an ordinance of God,) yet will it not follow, that therefore we must reteyn the whoredoms of the church of Rome (which we are commanded to separate from, Rev. 18. 4) because we retain baptism, but rather thus, as we have baptism from Christ, so are we to have the constitution of our church, & what is polluted in either by Antichrist▪ to reject.  
3. Our retaining of baptism administered in the Apostate churches, doth no more prove that we fetch succession of our church from Rome: then the Israelites, that were circumcised in the church of jeroboam, returning to jerusalem did fetch the succession of their church from the Apostate church of Israel.  
If it be objected that this people now separated from that Apostasy, were matter of that false church: and so we fetch a succession of the matter of our church from a false church. I answer, that all such of God's people that stand members of those Antichristian assemblies must be considered two ways. 1. in respect of us and their outward standing, so are they members of those Assemblies: 2. in respect of the Lord and their election; so are they no members thereof, but the matter of God's invisible church in time becoming visible. As on the contrary in a visible church, all the people thereof in our account are held true members, yet † hypocrites 
1 joh. 2. 19  in the Lords account, are no members or matter thereof. And as the Apostle saith of Antichrists, if they had been of us, they should have continued with us: so I say of God's people in Babylon, if they had been of that Antichristian church they should have continued with them, but by their coning out, it appears that they are not of them, and therefore we cannot be said to have the matter of our church by succession from Antichristianisme: but by the gracious work of God in his people of all ages, and (to use your word of Succession) as it were by a secret and hidden succession, even from the Apostles times. And thus it will not follow (as you say) that we make the church of Rome a true church.  
If Infants of the church of Rome have true title to Baptism, by reason of the faith 
Repl.  of some of their Ancestors that were faithful, then are they the true matter of the visible church. etc.  
We do not say that the Infants of the church of Rome, have title to 
An.  Baptism by reason of their Ancestors faith, but do affirm that in respect of that Apostatical standing, neither infants nor their parents have right to any of God's ordinances: neither is it enough that people be elected, and thereby to have right to God's covenant etc. before God: but to be members of the visible church and partakers of the holy things, there must be a 
* Rev. 18. 4  visible going out of Babylon: 
“ 2 Cor. 6. ●6.  f●r what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols. the vessels of the Lord must be carried out to jerusalem, & then are they in their due place, and shall have their true use, which in their Romish standing they could not have; albeit in Babylon they were the vessels of the Lord. And herein are you deceived, that if any of the ordinances of God be retained in the hands of Autichristians, these ordinances must either make them a true visible Church, or be none of his, and when they are brought out thence have no use.  
These thing, may also answer that which follows: For upon this that we deny Baptism administered in Popery to be iterated, you would conclude these absurdities to follow. viz.  
That infants of the Church of Rome are a true visible Ch: in the constitution & essential 
Repl.  causes thereof. That the Church in the new testament cometh by succession of carnal genealogy through the church of Rome to our days. That the matter of the church, viz. Infants descending of baptized parents, is by genealogy, & the form of the Church, viz. baptism upon those infants, is by descent, and therefore the Church is by succession. I demand, why may not the ministery be by succession as well as the Church, and England and Rome true Churches, their Ministry true, etc.  
To all which particulars, I answer thus, 1. Infant's may be members 
Ans.  of a visible Church, but that a visible Church can stand of infants only, we deny. 2. Neither Infants nor the elder sort standing in Antichristianism, can be the matter of a true visible Church, being so looked upon according to that estate and respect. 3. Baptism (which you would have the form) hath his true use in the visible Church of Christ, and to God's people. 4. let the people of God in Babylon and the Baptism that there they receive, be compared with God's people in the apostate Church of Israel, & with their circumcision: And it will appear that the infants of the Church of Rome are not a true visible Church, in the essential causes thereof, any more or otherwise, then as they were in Israel. Concerning the Church's succession by carnal genealogy, I answer, that as the covenant was made with Abraham and his seed; so under the Gospel, doth the promise belong to the parents & their children. And that God had 
“ Apoc. 14. & 4.  his people in all the times of Popery that were within his covenant: Neither is this to hold succession of visible Churches, but (to use your term) a succession of true believers in all ages, though not always known in public, it being the lot of the 
† Rev. 1. 13. 14.  Church to be persecuted by the Dragon and driven to flee into the wilderness, for a time, times, & half a time. And therefore seeing the matter of the visible Church is not always, nor otherwise seen to descend from baptized people by genealogy, then as it did from parents circumcised in Israel: there can be no other succession visible of the Church, or ministery, then is incident to such estate, but as in Israel there was * a breaking off, of both: so hath 
King. 12 33. ●ev. 11. 7. 12. 14. ● 13. 7. 8.  it fallen out under the new Testament, a † surceasing of succession of true visible Churches and of the true ministery in the apostasy of Antichrist. And this may satisfy you why we may not return back again to churches continuing in Apostasy.  
But where you say, you hear some are minded to take up their former ministery and return back again into England. You should have done well, either to have forewarned such, (if you knew in them a purpose to sin) else not so easily to have received the report thereof to make it public, and so to cause suspicion to arise against any brother undeservedly. For mine own part, I know none of the church to have any such thoughts. If any that have left the faith, as you have done, and departed from the church, or for their sin justly cast out, so do purpose, what is that to us? look to it yourselves.  
And truly for my part, I hold it as lawful to retain the church and ministery of England, as to retain the baptism, and when I shall yield to the truth of the baptism of England, I will yield to the truth of the Church & ministery of England etc.  
It may be you speak truer of your estate, than you think. But whatsoever 
Ans.  your persuasion is, I mind a difference to be put between baptism administered in churches standing in Apostasy, and the constitution and ministery of these churches: For baptism being the ordinance of God, may not be repeated, as before is proved: but those Assemblies that consist of confused multitudes and are not set in the ways of God, that have a false ministery and worship, we have a special commandement * to separate 
Rev. 18. 4 Cor. 6. 17.  from, as we have from all corruptions of God's ordinances: but in no scripture to reject the ordinances themselves for any pollution that is upon them.  
Now it is further to be remembered, that we in retaining baptism, do not retain the corruptions wherewith it was administered, but that which is of God therein: Neither do we hold it lawful for them that are come out of Babylon, to return thither to fetch Baptism. And to make this difference to appear more plainly, Let be considered the example of those Israelites that returned to jerusalem, who cast not of their circumcision, yet might they not justify for true, that apostate Church or Ministry from which they did separate, or continue in the communion thereof without sin.  
But because I know the ministery and Church of England is false, therefore it must needs be, that Baptism, which is the form of the Church essentially, etc. 
Repl.   
For the ministery of the Church of England, whether it be true or false, 
Ans.  is not the thing controverted between you and me: but that baptism in an apostate Church is false essentially I deny, and yourself confesseth 
* Char● pag. 35.  that if it be administered by Antichrist to such as confess their faith and sins, it were true and not to be repeated: which opinion of yours can not stand, if the essence of baptism be destroyed. For your wish, that the Lord would open all our eyes of the separation to see and our hearts to understand, that all the old Testament was carnal, to type out & to teach them heavenly things: & therefore their Church was carnal to type to us the new Testament, etc. It hath pleased God, (and we are thankful for it) to open our eyes to discern of your carnal doctrine, & to understand the truth, which you labour to obscure by your strange expositions. As for the old Test. which you call carnal, & the church carnal: I tell you again and again, that all the ordinances under the old testament, were spiritual in their ordination and right use, as the 
† Rom. 7  law itself is holy & spiritual, and therefore are called 
“ Heb. ●  ordinances of religion, and the Tabernacle, Mikdasch, to teach that it was of an holy use for the Lord. The old 
† joh. 1● Ephe. ● 19 & 3. 1 Cor. 10 4. Eph. 4  Church also was a spiritual house, notwithstanding, that the first testament had ordinances of religion which did shadow forth things to come, for in substance both it, and the Church under the Gospel are 
* Heb. 1.- 10.  the same, only differing in the outward administration of the covenant. To the former Church holy things were administered, under types and figures: to the latter more simply and in the plain manifestation of the truth. Now to prove your carnal and typical Church, you say:  
The matter of the old Church, was a carnal Israelite, and the form, carnal circumcision 
Re.  a carnal seal. Gen. 17. 10-14. But the matter of the Church of the new Testament is a true Israelite, the form is the circumcision of the heart, a new creature, the holy spirit of promise, whereby we are sealed, which is manifested by confession & baptism in water. Act. 10. 47. Ephe. 1. 13. Gal. 3. 27. & 6. 15. Io. 3. 5. Mat. 3. 6. Rom. 10. 9 Act, 8. 36. 37. etc.  
Concerning your carnal matter and form I have answered, pag. 12. and have also proved that God did require of that his people Israel to be 
† Exo. ●  holy and 
“ Rom. 2. 29. D● 10. 16 Jer. 4. 4 Ans.  spiritual. And for the form of the old Church, I have showed likewise that they became 
* Gen. Deut. 2● 10- 15.  a Church & people of God, by virtue of God's covenant made with them, whereunto circumcision was added as a seal to confirm the same, which they also received, pag. 12. 13. 23. etc. The form of the Church can never be wanting, the Church continuing to be a Church: but circumcision may be wanting, and was wanting to all the Israelites 〈◊〉 in the wilderness by all that space of 40. years, and yet I hope they were 〈…〉 bers of his 
“ Psal. 43.  Church all that time notwithstanding.  
That which you set down for the form of the new testament, viz. Circumcision of the heart, a new creature and the spirit of Christ, is internal, proper to every true member both of the old Church and new: yea this form (if it be so called) belongs to God's people in Babylon and to all the members of the invisible Church: but that outward form of a visible Church, which we are to know it by, must be visible, and such as we can discern them to be a people of God from all other assemblies. But this new creature and inward graces, you will say are manifested by confession and baptism in water: so may it also, where baptism is not had as it might be in Israel when they could not have circumcision. Also the form of the Church, must be one indivisible thing common to the whole, that gives the being thereof, as before I have observed: but confession and baptism as it is particularly applied to every member, as to the * Eunuch, Paul etc. so may it rest in one man, if all the rest should die or fall away, who could 
●ct. 8. ● 9 18  not be a Church, and yet he hath that, which you set down to be the form of the Church. Wherefore Gods people joined together in the fellowship of the Gospel, must have one general form, whereby they receive the denomination of a Church, & that is their solemn entering into communion under the covenant of the Lord uniting together, to walk in all his ways & to be his 
●eu. 29. ● 13. ●. 18. 20 ●i. 1. 5. ●. 2. 42 ●ifferenc ●he pre●.  people, which all that are afterward † added to the Church must promise to observe. And such a communion do we hold for a Church (& so “ did you) For as many stones may be hewn & squared, & so be fit matter for an house, yet have not those stones the denomination of an house, until they be joined together in one form: No more people confessing Christ, are to beheld a visible Church until they be joined together in such a form, as Christ hath commanded. But to follow you in your comparison of these two Churches, speaking of the jews thus you say. Their carnal Church in the matter and form, came by carnal genealogy, and so they all of them were gendered unto bondage under the rudiments of the world. Gal. 4. 24. 25. under the carnal Testament. Our Church in the matter & form thereof is by spiritual generation, that is the genealogy of the faithful, of Abraham the father of us all. Gal 3. 7. 9 14. Rom. 4. 10. 11. Their parents in that carnal Church, was carnal Abraham, and carnal Agar, etc. our spiritual parent is Abraham spiritual etc. Their Ministry was a carnal Ministry by carnal genealogy etc.  
First I deny that either the matter or form of the Church of the 
●●.  jews came by carnal genealogy, as you apply it: They were made a Church and people of God through the everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed, else could not the Proselyts and their children have been matter of that old Church, seeing they descended not by carnal genealogy from Abraham. Again, that Church must be of the same nature with the covenant which gives the being thereof, but this 
† Deut. 13. conf. w● Luke 1. 7● 73. 74. Cor 6. 1●  covenant is spiritual: Ergo the Church also is spiritual.  
That place of Gal. 4. 24. 25. which you city to prove that old Church to be carnal, you missaply, as before I have showed, pag, 14. Secondly I deny that Hagar was the mother of the Israelites after the flesh, though Abraham was their father, neither was Ishmael the type of the israelites as they were by nature the seed of Abraham, but of such Israelits and others under the Gospel, that by the works of the law sought to be justified, whereby they came in bondage to the law as the Apostle witnesseth. See the exposition of Gal. 4. 24. 25. in pag. 14.  
As for the spiritual genealogy, both under the law and the Gospel, I do approve to be the true seed of Abraham, but not in your sense, that excludes the infants of the faithful from the covenant, which of us are to be 
* Mat. ● Act. 3.  accounted the children thereof, as well as these that outwardly profess their faith.  
And concerning the ministery of the old Church, although none could be Priests 
† Exo. 28.  but of the line of Aaron, yet was the 
“ Num. 6-19. D● 33. 8-●  tribe of Levi chosen by God himself for that office. And God * sanctified them to the service of his name, and to the Ministry of holy things.  
Lastly, you charge us, with an introducing of a carnal line into the Church, to be baptized, & by succession fetch baptism upon the carnal line through the Church of Rome, etc. 
“ Numb▪ 19 1 Cor. ● 13.   
Of this I have spoken before, and I answer further. 1. that we do not introduce any other carnal line into the Church to be baptized, than the Lord himself introduceth, that is, the children of the faithful. And this is not (as you say) to set up judaisme in the new Testament, seeing all the people of God, of all nations and ages are bound unto it: for we know no other covenant, by which we become the People & Church of God, but that same, which was made with Abraham and his seed.  
Concerning the carnal line (as you call it) though in respect of us it may seem to stop in Apostasy, yet the Lord continueth his promise to his elect therein. Neither by this our retaining of baptism do we justify Rome to be a true church, nor make ourselves Schismatics: seeing we cast of her adulteries, and keep that which is Christ's ordinance, by her polluted. Also you charge us, To be fallen from Christ, and become a new second image of the beast never heard of before in the world. For being fallen from Christ look that it be not your own case. Of the image of the beast I † read, but not of a 
●ev. 13. ●. 15. & ●. 9  new second image, and therefore no marvel though it be never heard of in the world. (as you say) and if it had been by you unspoken of also, by so applying of it unto us, your sin had been the less. And thus much in answer to your premised ground. Next you set down the sum of my exception.  
First I say, that the new Testament is as sufficient for the direction of all the affairs 
●l.  and occasions that befall in our time in the new Testament, as the old Testament was for the occurrents that befell under the old Testament, seeing Christ is as faithful as Moses, and the new Testament as perfect as the old. Gal. 3. 15. and therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apostalike constituting of Churches and our constituting of them, in respect of the persons to be admitted into the church, and in respect of baptizing, and not baptizing, or rebaptising of them, he could & would have done it▪ etc.  
The sufficiency of the new Testament we acknowledge, & of the books 
Answ.  thereof for that use wherefore they were written. But it seems that you confound the new Testament or covenant of grace with the books thereof: for you reason thus, that the new Testament (meaning the books thereof) are sufficient for direction of all affairs of the church. And your proof out of Gal. 3. 15. is of the covenant itself, and not of the books thereof. And afterward you allege as a reason for the same end, that the new Testament is perfect and sealed with the blood of Christ, thus deceiving the Readers with an homonomy of the word Testament.  
The books of the new Testament were all unwritten when Christ suffered and had sealed the covenant of Grace. This Testament had been perfect, if there had been never a book written. The history of the Gospel was written 
* joh. 20. 31 Rom. 1. 1. 2. & 16. 25. 26.  that we might believe that jesus is the Christ promised and foretold in the holy Scriptures of the Prophets, and that believing in him we might have eternal life.  
Concerning the faithfulness of Christ, it consisteth in 
“ Luk. 1. 70 & 24. 27. ● Pet. 1. 10. ●1. 12. Act. 26. 22. & 13. 29.  fulfilling of those things which Moses and the Prophets had said should come to pass. And if he give us direction for all the affairs and occasions that fall out in our times, either out of the books of the new Testament or old, we ought to be thankful to God, and accordingly to use them, and not bind him, or ourselves, only to the writings of the Apostles: Seeing Christ is the Author as well of the doctrine & writings of the Prophets, as of the Apostles. 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. 1 Pet. 3. 18. 19  
Again, concerning the difference between the Apostolic constituting of Churches and ours, which you charge us with: I answer, we plead for no difference, neither do we practise contrary to the first planting of the church (witness Mr. Smyth. Differences, in the preface lin. 12.) 
●ns. ●  for as then such as were to be received into the Church, did confess their faith, and so with their families were baptized, so we hold, that all such that are unbaptized, and to be added to the church: must enter thereinto they with their families, after the same manner, as in the Apostles times. And we do acknowledge that all churches which have Apostated, are to be reform according to the pattern and platform laid down by the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures. But this difference we put between persons that were never baptized, and such as have received baptism in an Apostate church: affirming that the former are to be adjoined to the Church by baptism, the latter not to be again baptized: which if it had been necessary, the Lord no doubt would have commanded, when he bade his people to go out of Babylon. But seeing he saith not a word of the renewing thereof, we are to content ourselves, and to practise as the Holy Ghost 
† 2 Chr. ● 5.- 13.  else where doth teach us, by the example of the Israelites in an other like case. Now if you can show us either commandment or example or any good reason in all the new Testament, to rebaptise them which have been baptized in Apostate churches, we will receive it and practise it: if not, why do you plead for it, & without warrant do rebaptise yourselves, & also affirm so confidently, that all things be so manifest in the APOSTLES writings, that upon every occasion that falls out in our times, we have direction for it.  
Lastly, it is not we that add to this new Testament (as you charge us) or that bring in a new CHRIST, a new Church, a new Covenant, a new Gospel, and a new Baptism: but you yourselves are guilty of this sin, for you by your new devysed baptism, have rejected the seal of GOD'S Covenant, and consequently the covenaunt itself, and so the Author of it. And as JEROBOAM † forged the eight month out of his own heart, for to keep a feast unto 
●in. 12.  the Lord: so have you forged a church of your own invention, and the receiving in of members into it. And that which you would impute unto 
●v. 22. ●.  us, is fallen upon yourselves, even that * woe for adding to the word.  
Secondly, I affirm that (as the holy Ghost saith) the Antichristians are in condition equal to Pagans, not called Israelites or Samaritans, but Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentiles: But the holy Ghost knoweth what and how to speak: And therefore as the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites and Gentiles washings were nothing, no more is the Baptism of Antichristians any thing▪ etc.  
I have Answered to this before pag. 150. 151. And showed that the jews, which were called the people of “ Gomorah, and their Rulers the Princes of Sodom, should then stand in the same estate with Pagans, and 
〈◊〉 10.  in condition be equal unto them, and their circumcision void, if the holy Ghost, in so terming them, did mind as you do. This is a strange kind of reasoning, that because the Antichristians resemble the Gentiles in some filthy practices, for the which the spirit calls them Sodomites, etc. therefore their condition in all respects, is as theirs. Christ called Peter Satan, shall we thereupon conclude, that therefore Peter was as Satan in all respects, because in his counseling his master to favour himself, he was like him? Of judah it is said, that she was more † corrupt in all her ways, than Samaria and Sodom, shall we say (because the Lord thus speaketh) that judah was now to be recircumcised? If the holy Ghost calling the Antichristians Sodomites etc. should teach us thereby, that he esteemeth no otherwise of the church and Baptism, then of the Synagogues of Babylon, the washings of Egypt, then of the worship of Sodom and the Pagans (as you say) then must he needs teach us, the like to esteem of the churches of the jews, and of the circumcision, when he calls them the people of Gomorrah, and more corrupt in her ways than Sodom, as before I have observed.  
For your comparison of the Gentiles washings, with the baptism of Antichristians, affirming, that as the former were nothing, no more is the other. This is not to compare things alike: for the washings of the Gentiles were of man's invention, and baptism is the ordinance of Christ. And therefore it will not follow, that because men's devises are nothing, when any of them turn to God; that baptism also (God, ordinance profaned in Popery) is therefore nothing, when any such Apostates repent and return to Zion. No more is this a good reason to prove that the Holy Ghost did foresee, that the Antichristians would abolish true baptism, by baptizing Infants, because he calleth persons Apostating, Babylonians, Sodomites, Gentiles.  
Thirdly, whereas you say that repairing the Church now after the Apostasy of 
R●pl.  Antichrist is a fit speech than constituting, herein do you both tax yourselves of the use of that word, constitution, and plainly signify that you incline to maintain the Churches of England or Rome to be true churches, wherein whether you do not forsake your first faith, and turn with the dog to the vomit, look you unto it. etc.  
If it had pleased you to have taken my whole answer, you had neither 
Ans.  cause to have excepted against the word, repairing, nor yet have gathered thereby any inclination in us, to maintain any thing that is corrupt either in the churches of England or Rome, much less (as you say) to forsake our first faith, and turn with the dog to the vomit. But you that thus speak, it were good to take heed, you be not the dog that vomits out your blasphemous errors, to the dishonour of God and offence of his people. If the word of repairing, had been so faulty, you had done better to have manifested the untrunes thereof, then to have bewrayed your evil thoughts in the unjust censuring of others.  
But concerning repairing or reforming, let the indifferent Reader judge, if it be not more proper to us, then to constitute or plant, for who knoweth not that there is but one constitution or planting of the church under the Gospel, which is founded by the Apostles. And other form or frame can no earthly power device then that which the Apostles have left us. And seeing at the first they did constitute churches in divers parts of the world, and those churches ruinated by Antichrist: shall not the restoring of them to the first pattern of the Apostles, be properly called a repairing? seeing they did not cease utterly to be no churches, but are churches in corruption or ruin. But I will not contend about words, for that which I strive for, is, to have the church in that form as the word prescribeth, both for people, worship, government, and what else appertains thereunto.  
Fourthly, I say that the jews that were converted to the saith & new Testament 
Rep.  of Christ, by Christ, john and the Apostles in your account, were in a far better estate than Antichristians, for they, as you say, were of the same body with the church, of the new Testament, and their circumcision was a seal of the new Testament, as you say, and they were in Christ jesus, as you say, and were washed I doubt not many of them into the Messiah etc. and why might not they by john, Christ, or his Apostles be admitted into the church without baptism: If therefore Christ, john and the Apostles would needs baptize them, and so by baptism constitute them into the new Testament, that had all these prerogatives in your judgement: much more will they have us to constitute Antichristians converted into the true church by baptism.  
This your reason is alike the rest, nothing good, for albeit that the Ch. 
●ns.  of the jews was a true church, yet had it not Christ exhibited in the flesh afore this time, wherefore it was meet, seeing the Priesthood and ceremonial administration of that Church was changed, and the † old was to cease, 
●eb. 8. 13  that the jews, as well as the Gentiles should be partakers thereof alike; that thereby they might acknowledge Christ their Messiah to be come, whom they looked for. And as it was required of the members of the old Church, that they should * believe in the Messiah to come: So was faith “ required 
●en. 15. 6 ●m. 4. 11. ●k 2. 25. ●or. 10. 3.  of them that should be admitted into the church of the Gospel, wherein both jews & Gentiles should be alike received & baptissd into his name.  
As for the Apostate church of Antichrist, it is such a one as acknowledgeth jesus Christ to be come, & professeth the Gospel, though corruptly. And baptism received in the Apostate church hath his use unto such as 
Acts. 8. 37. & 2. ●1. 44. Cor. 10. 3  repenting, turn to the true church of Christ, because baptism is an ordinance of the new Testament, appointed by the Lord himself. And though the believing jews were in Christ members of his mystical body, and their circumcision a seal of the righteousness of their faith, yet was their faith in † Christ to come: and circumcision did seal up unto them Christ to come. And therefore all this being but by faith in the Messiah to come, it was necessary, that they should also receive him now being come, and be baptized into his name, if they would continue members in his body. And so this may answer you, why john, Christ, and his disciples did not admit the jews, as members of the church of the Gospel with out confession of faith in CHRIST now come, and Baptism in his name. And yet we may receive into our Church, them that have been baptized in the Apostate Churches without iterating of baptism, upon the confession of their faith and repentance. Neither is this, to offer indignity to the LORDS ordinances in the old TESTAMENT, (as you do seem to charge us) for we honour them in their place, and right use, as the Lord then appointed them, and yourself, I suppose will not say, that you offer indignity to those ordinances of the Lord although you acknowledge that baptism received in Popery, is not be to repeated, being administered to such as are of years, upon their own profession of faith.  
Again etc. I deny that ever the English nation or any one of our predecessors were of 
Re.  the faith of Christ, show it if you can, but we came of a Pagan race, till Rome the mother came and put upon us her false baptism. And therefore though the Romans might plead this, yet England cannot plead it,, and so your dissimilitude cannot hold in that thing, and our case simply Paeganisme.  
If all this were granted that you say, yet is the state of England in as 
Ans.  good case as Rome, seeing she by your own confession hath Rome for her mother, 
† Ezech 44.  and as the mother, so is her Daughter. If England partake with Rome in her Apostasy and whoredoms, she must needs be a member of her. But I pray you Sir, will you admit of that baptism in Rome without new baptizing of such as shall come from thence? if you do, you overthrew your own position, viz, That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptism. And if you do not, why put you this dissimilitude between England and Rome which serves not to the question in hand?  
But you desire me to show if I can, that the English nation or any one of our predecessors were of the faith of Christ: it may be I cannot show, that any of them were Anabaptists before you, which you falsely call the faith of Christ but I can show to them that will hear, that our English nation received the faith before Rome fell into this Apostasy.  
First, Gildas affirmeth 
* Act. Monu● Book. 2. p. 95. Gildas li● de vict. Aurelij Ambros●  that Britain received the Gospel in the time of Tiberius the Emperor under whom Christ suffered. And then was not Rome 
“ Rom 1.  apostate. And further he saith, That joseph of Aremathea after the dispersion of the jews, was sent of Philippe the Apostle from France to Britain, about the year of our Lord, 63. And remained in Britain all his time, who with his fellows laid the first foundation of Christian faith among the Britain people. 2 
† Tertul. con. Indeos  Tertullian testifieth how the Gospel was dispersed abroad by the sound of the Apostles, & there reckoneth up the Medes, Persians, Parthians and dwellers in Mesopotamia, jury, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Egypt, Pamphilia with many more, at length cometh to the coast of the Morianes and all the borders of Spain, with divers nations of France: And there amongst 〈◊〉 other reciteth all the parts of Britain, and reporteth the same to be subject to Christ.  
And also reckoneth up the places of Sarmatia, of the Danes, the Gerrmanes & Schythians with many other Provinces and Isles: in all which places, saith he, reigneth the name of Christ, which now beginneth to be common. 3. † Origine saith, that Britain did consent to Christian religion. 4. * Nicephorus, saith, That Simon 
Origin. ●. 4. in ●…ch. ●icep. li. ●. 100LS.  Zelotes did spread the gospel of Christ to the west Ocean, and brought the same into the Isles of Britain. 5. In the time of the Abbot of Cluniake, the Scots did celebrate their Easter, not after the Roman manner, but after the Greeks, as he testifieth to Barnard. Which argueth that they had received the faith, and not from Rome. 6. Also it appeareth by a letter of Elutherius Bishop of Rome written to Lucius King of Britain, anno 169. that Lucius had received the faith of Christ in his Land, before he sent to Elutherius for the Roman laws: for so do the words of the letter purport, which are these:  
Ye have received of late through God's mercy in the Realm of Britain, the law and faith of Christ: you have with you within the Realm both the parts of the scriptures, out of them by God's grace take ye a law, and by that law, through God's sufferance rule your kingdom of Britain, etc. And thus was fulfilled in Britain as well as in 
Isa. 42. 4  other lands the words of the Prophet, who saith, “ he shall not fail nor be discouraged, (speaking of Christ) till he hath set judgement in the earth, and the Isles shall wait for his law. And it is also further written of this King Lucius, that he did not compel the heathen, but embraced such as by the word were converted. Which is to be observed concerning the constitution of the Churches then. For it is said, that he founded many▪ Churches, and gave great riches and liberties to the same. And because of this embracing of the faith, it caused those great troubles that fell out between the britains which were Christians professing the faith, and the infidels, who brought in the Romans which exercised much cruelty amongst the Christians. In Dioclesian's time the Churches of Britain were greviously persecuted & many suffered for the faith of Christ, as Albanus, julius, Aaron, Amphibulus & many more.  
And thus if it please you to take notice from these writers, you may see that this English nation were of such as professed the faith of Christ and and not of a Pagan race, till Rome came and put upon us false baptism, as as you say, neither that our case is simply paganism, if these things be thus, as is aforesaid.  
Next whereas I said that repentance of such as were baptized in Apostate Churches was sufficient without rebaptisation for their admittance into the church etc. You answer. That the Churches of Antichrist were false, and 
Rep.  the church of the Israelites was not false. The churches of Antichrist were false, because they consisted of the carnal seed baptized, which was not that one seed, unto the which the promise was made▪ that is the faithful▪ etc.  
I have showed before how well you agree with yourself concerning the 
Ans.  church of Israel, which here you say was nor false, and yet have published to the contrary. As for your grounds or reasons of the trunes of the Israelitish church, and falseness of Antichrists, whatsoever you can plead for the one, the like may be alleged for the other. If Israel in her defection be accounted a true church: then must Rome also in her Apostasy. Certain it is, that both are to be esteemed Apostatical Churches, and this is that which we testify. And touching Israel, if the carnal circumcision alone of the Israelites, had been the sufficient constitution of that church, to keep it free from being Apostate, they continuing it; why should the Lord bid tell her, 
† Hos. 2. ●  that she was not his wife, nor he her husband. Or did the 
* 2 Chro. 13. 14.  Priests and Levites well to leave their suburbs and possessions, to leave that church to go to juda and jerusalem? but hereof before.  
2. For the matter of the Antichristian churches, which you say was false, because they consisted of the carnal seed baptized. I answer, that they were not therefore false or Apostatical▪ because infants were baptized (whose baptism is proved lawful already) but for that they broke covenant with God, forsook their first love (as now you do) and followed strange lovers, 
“ Rev. 17. 2-6 16. ● 18. 2. 3. 9▪ 24.  shed the blood of the Saints, were a cage of every unclean and hateful bird, etc. and these are the sins which they are charged with, but never is it imputed to them for sin, their baptizing of Infants.  
Wherefore an Edomite or Ismaelite coming to be a proselyte of the jews Church 
Rep.  that had omitted circumcision, is a true precedent of the Antichristian Apostasy. etc.  
This is against yourself, for if they were uncircumcised, they ought to 
Answ.  be received into the jews Church by circumcision. And so if any be unbaptized, they ought now to be received into the ch. by baptism. But tell me if an Edomite or Ismalite having circumcision & beconing a proselyte, was recircumcised? Now if the Edomites & Ismalites turning to the faith, either were uncircumcised, or being before circumcised were not recircumcised, what is this to the purpose, to prove that Antichristians must be rebaptized? You add also, so I take it the Proselytes were types of Antichristians converted to the faith and admitted into the true church. Why say you not rather, the Proselytes were types of the Gentiles, that under the Gospel are converted to the faith, and admitted into the true church? As for their being types of Antichristians, you know there is a great difference, seeing the Proselytes were uncircumcised afore their conversion, but the Antichrists are baptized already. But if this be your thought that Proselytes, & their entrance into the jewish Church were types of Antichristians converted and admitted into the true Church, than I trust you will, that the thing typed be answerable to the type: But you know, when a Gentile or Edomite was converted to the profession of the jews, and became a proselyte, he was received 
〈◊〉 12.  into the church of the old Testament with his family, and † all his males must be circumcised, as well as himself. Why admit you not that the Proselytes of Antichristianisme (as you call them) should enter into the church with their children, according to the type propounded by yourself.  
Moreover, whereas you say, that if the Apostles had met with such as we are, they would have received us into the Church without baptism. I answer, if such an example had been left us, we would then have rested satisfied: but seeing the Apostles have left no such example or precept, therefore you are still in your Apostasy & having not repent of, nor forsaken your Egyptian baptism, are still unseparated, do still retain the mark of the beast, and are subject to the woe that the Angel threateneth to persons so marked.  
Example is left of such as were circumcised in the Apostasy of Israel, & were not circumcised again when they came to the church of judah, and 
●s.  this is written for our learning. Rom. 15, 4. That baptism is but † one, & not to be iterated, the scripture teacheth no precept nor example for rebaptising. And therefore we may not forsake our baptism (howsoever you call 
●ph. 4. 5.  or esteem it) seeing we know it is not to be repeated, but upon our repentance it sealeth unto us the covenant of salvation, & is effectual for the confirming of our faith.  
As for Apostasy, whether we stand therein or no, let it be tried by the word, we know you an unequal judge, that hath apostated from the faith. And for the mark of the beast, and the woe that follows, we know it is due to them to whom it belongs. And if this mark were the baptizing of infants, as you say it is, than the Angel should threaten the woe to such as keep the commandments of God and faith of jesus, which is directly contrary to the Angel's speech & intendment. But it were good for you to take heed lest while you shoot of such thundering pieces against others, they do indeed recoil upon yourselves.   

Of M. Smyths second Reason for Anabaptism of elder people.  R. Clyfton. 
Now let us come to the 2. Reason which is this:  
2. Because true baptism is but one, but the Baptism of Antichrist is not true baptism, and so not that one baptism of Christ. But all the members of Christ must have true baptism.  
Answer.  
1. There is but one faith and one baptism, Eph. 4. 4. and therefore it is sufficient to be once baptized, as it was to be once circumcised.  
2. That the baptism of Antichrist is not true baptism, I grant, and do also affirm that all members of Christ must have true baptism, and what then? must it follow, that now such as are baptized, must be rebaptized, else cannot be members of a visible church? I deny it, and do further answer, 1. That the baptism which we received in the Apostate church is no more Antichrists, than the word that we received therein: For Antichrist did never ordain a new kind of baptism, but did only pollute with his inventions that holy ordinance of Christ. And therefore if this baptism that we have received, be called the baptism of Antichrist, it is to affirm an untruth, seeing the institution thereof was by jesus Christ, who commanded his Apostles to baptize all nations with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, & of the H. Ghost. Mat. 28. 19 And the same baptism for substance is still retained in the Apostate churches, and none other.  
2. This baptism may in some respects be called true baptism, as before I have noted in my first reason against rebaptising▪ for 1. it hath Christ for the Author. 2. it hath the true matter outward sign or element, which is water 3. the true form of administering the same, which is, baptizing into the name of the Father and of the sone, and of the holy Ghost, all which is practised in the popish Church: Neither is any baptized into the name or faith of Antichrist, but into the faith or profession of Christ. And therefore our baptism is the baptism of Christ, and to us that repent, true baptism, and so consequently not to be iterated.  M. Smyth. 
I make Answer, that seeing Infants are baptized, which is the false matter of baptism, and seeing in them there is not the question of a good conscience unto God. 1 Pet. 3. 21. nor the heart sprinkled from an evil conscience. Heb. 10. 22. which is the form. Seeing they cannot express, credis? credo: abrenuncias? abrenunci●: which is the form of baptism, even the mutual contract betwixt God and the party baptized, expressed visibly in confession: therefore the baptism is not Christ's, but antichrists. etc.  R. Clyfton. 
This is the sum of your reply to my answer, that Baptism administered in the Antichristian assemblies is of no use to the penitent, and is not baptism at all, because both matter is false, and the form is wanting. Of the matter (whereof you speak) which are Infants, and of the lawfulness of the baptizing of Infants, I refer you for answer to the former part of this writing: Also for the matter & form of baptism, to that which hath been spoken thereof in this latter part. Only thus much concerning that which you here insert to the form, To be the question of a good conscience unto God, the heart sprinkled from an evil conscience, to express Credis? Credo, abrenun 〈…〉? abrenunci●. I will answer, first, that which the Apostle speaketh to such as were of years, he applieth to infants. 2. In a good and true understanding we may and aught to think, that children have their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, by the spirit of God, in the blood of jesus Christ, else how could we hope they should be saved, seeing by nature they are the children of wrath. Eph. 2. 3. but yet by grace the kingdom of heaven appertayns unto them. Mat. 19 14. 3. Although a good conscience be it which ministereth assurance of comfort to the baptized, yet is not that the form of this sacrament, as now we speak of it. First, because hypocrites in the church receive the outward sign, as S. Magus did, of whom it is said that he was baptized: & yet neither Simon nor any hypocrite are sprinkled from an evil conscience. 2. That which is required in the receiving of every sacrament and in all parts of the worship of God, & in the whole course of our life, cannot be the proper form of one particular sacrament: But a 
* Deut. ● 16. 1 Cor. ● 28. 29. 3●  good conscience is required to be in the receivers of every sacrament, etc. 3. There is an outward baptism, whereof 
“ Mat. 3. ● Tit. 3. 5.  john and the Ministers of the Gospel are the disposers: and “ there is an inward baptism which the Holy Ghost ministereth, which is 
† Hebr. 1● 22. 23.  the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience, and is indeed the thing signified by the outward washing. But we must consider of Baptism as it is external, and so to have an external form & matter.  
Lastly, for the meaning of 
* 1 Pet. 3. 2●  that place of Peter, I take to be this. That the Apostle in applying the former example, to the times following the coming of Christ, would teach, that the peservation of Noah in the waters was a figure of our baptism, which is a type of our spiritual preservation from the flood of God's wrath, saying, that baptism that now is saveth us also by the resurrection of jesus Christ▪ And lest any might attribute overmuch to the outward Ceremony by way of correction, he advertiseth us that salvation (to speak properly) stands in the forgiveness of our sins etc. by the death of Christ, and that baptism saveth, in that it testifieth and sealeth the same unto us. And this remission of sins, is partly signified in putting away the filth of the soul, closely insinuated, when he saith, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh: And partly in declaring the effect thereof, to wit, the confident demanding, which a good conscience maketh to God. For when we are washed from our sins we may cheerfully and with a good conscience freely call upon God. Now this being as you see the effect of remission of our sins, & internal, how shall it be the outward form of Baptism, which is an outward ordinance of Christ? To your credis and credo I have answered before. Neither is that which is spoken to them of years to be misapplied to infants, as I have showed divers times heretofore.   

Of Mr Smythes 3. Reason for Anabaptizing of Elder people.  
The third Reason.  
3. Because as the false Church is rejected and the true erected, the false ministery forsaken and the true received: So false worship (and by consequent baptism) must be renounced, and the true baptism assumed.  
Answer.  
First, I grant that we ought to separate from all false or apostate Churches. Apoc. 18. 4. and to adjoin ourselves to a true Church, reform according to the pattern of the Apostles. 2. Also every false ministery is to be forsaken, Mat. 7. 15. 2 john, 10. Gal. 1. 8. and the true Ministers of God to be received. jer. 3. 14. 15. as did the faithful in Israel, that forsook the false Priests set up by jeroboam and returned to the Priests of the Lord to jerusalem, 2 Chron. 30. 11. 3. It is our duty likewise to renounce all false worship, 2 Cor. 6. 14-17. Esa. 30. 22. and to worship the Lord as he taught us in his word. And thus far do I approve of this reason, but the consequence I must deny, viz. that because false worship is to be renounced, therefore baptism also. For 1. we are to consider in that baptism received in apostate Churches two things, first that which is of God therein, secondly, that which is of man: that which is of God, is the substance of baptism, as before is observed, viz. the same matter and form which the Lord instituted and likewise the same end, which is the profession of the faith of Christ: and this is not false worship, and so consequently not to be renounced. Again, that which in the administration of baptism is devised by man, are those unwarrantable ceremonies of crossing, anointing and such like, these are to be renounced as vain worship, Mat. 15. 9 Now the ordinances of God are to be purged from the pollutions of men, and not with their pollutions to be renounced. For if pollution might warrant men to ca●● away with it, that which is ordained of God, then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon, have been brought again to jerusalem, nor yet the Temple itself that was so greatly profaned, in the days of the idolatrous Kings, have been any more used as a place of worship to the Lord.  
2. I answer, that we have received as true Baptism in the apostate Church as the people of God, did circumcision amongst the 10. Tribes: And therefore we may no more renounce it, and to assume a new, than they that returned to jerusalem. 2 Chron. 30. 11. might renounce their circumcision, & be recircumcised.  
It is objected of some, that this comparison holds not, for▪ Israel was a true Church, and therefore their circumcision was true: But an apostate Church hath nothing true, neither are the members thereof capable either of the covenant or seal in that standing, and it is not true baptism to such.  
This objection, in part I have answered before, and now answer further. 1. that the Israelites in their apostasy were not a true Church, but a false: seeing they separated from jerusalem the true and only Church in the world: and erected a new Church and communion amongst themselves, joining together in a false worship and under a false ministery, 1. King. 12. 30. 33. and 18. 19. 21. and so became an Harlot, Hosea 2. 2.  
Secondly in the Apostate Church, there be some things true in the substance, as the word and Baptism, though corrupted in the administration thereof by false Ministers and human devises.  
3. The members of an apostate Church are to be considered two ways. 1. as they stand members of ●●ch a Church: 2. as they are the seed and posterity of their forefathers, which received the covenant for themselves and their seed. And though in regard of the former estate, they have neither right to baptism or the covenant (for the holy things of God belongs not to false Churches properly) yet even to such members considered a part from such standing, and as they are the seed of their forefathers, so are they capable of the covenant and sacrament, and the same is available to them upon their repentance. For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their father's sakes. Rom. 11. 28. & this appeareth in that he saith, come out of her my people. Apoc. 18. 4. And to such it can not be denied, but that to them belongs the covenant: yea whiles they are in spiritual Babylon, as it did to the jews that were in Babylon of Chaldea. Bondage hinders not God's grace.  
But some may reply, that they whose fathers were idolaters and unbelievers could have no right to the covenant to be baptized through the faith of their fathers. I answer, the right that children have to God's covenant depends not only upon their immediate parents, but title thereunto descends unto them from their ancestors, Exod. 20. (if we respect herein God's mercy,) even as men's inheritances do from their former fathers. Neither do the members of an apostate Church, cast of all profession of faith, for they believe the scriptures, and in Christ, etc. though withal they profess divers errors, and worship the true God in a false manner.  
If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an apostate Church, had forefathers that believed. I answer, it can not be denied, seeing that an apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels (for then could it not be called apostate, seeing that to apostate, must be in regard of the truth) but is the ruins of a true Church: and therefore it must needs follow that their forefathers were believers and had received the covenant.  
And thus have I briefly answered these two Anabaptistical Positions with their Reasons, as the Lord hath enabled me for the present, wishing this labour might have been taken in hand by such as could perform it better. And further entreat that the truth (which I contend for) may not, by my weak defence bear any reproach, but that which is fault worthy, let it return upon my head. And do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written, and both he and they that so practise, may seriously consider of that which is done, and glorify God by repentance.  
March 14. 1608. Rich: Clifton.  Mr. Smyth. 
In the next place you make answer to my last Argument, which may be framed into this form. As the false ministery & worship are rejected, & the contrary true Church and ministery assumed. So the false worship, and by consequence the false baptism must be renounced etc. Although all that is mentioned here is taken away in the former discourse, yet it shall not be amiss to annex something, for the further clearing of the point, 1. I deny that Popish baptism to be true in the four causes thereof as you affirm. 1. the Lord never instituted that infants should be baptized. 2. He never ordained, that Pagans should be baptized. 3. He never ordained that the carnal seed of the faithful should be baptized. Therefore seeing Infants that are not the seed of the faithful, but the seed of Babylonians are baptized by Antichrist.  R. Clyfton. 
Concerning the causes of baptism, they have been formerly spoken of, 
Answ.  To these particulars, thus I answer brieflly: to the first, that the baptism of infants is proved in the former part of this writing. To the 2. touching Pagans, that they should be baptized without confession of their sins & faith, I am far from approving. 3. Concerning the carnal seed of the faithful, (as you call it) I have before proved, that God's covenant is made with the faithful and their seed naturally descending from them, and have removed all your objections to the contrary.  
The matter of baptism is false: 1. The Lord never appointed that the party should 
●ep.  be baptized without his own confession. etc. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Heb. 10. 22.  
This is true of such as are of years, and now at the first to be received 
●s.  into the church, but not of their infants, or of the infants of the faithful borne in the church: you allege not one example of any borne of believing parents, whose baptism was deferred till he was able to make confession of his own faith. touching the places of 1 Pet, 3. 21. & Heb, 10, 22 I have answered unto, in the former section.  
Therefore the Lord doth not contract with them, for Christ will not contract 
●ep.  in marriage with a bride or spouse that is under age. Gal. 4. 14.  
It is strange how you apply scriptures, would any that is a Scholar or 
●ns.  made conscience of the truth, ever have applied this place of the Galathians, to prove that the Lord will not contract with the infants of the faithful? The similitude that the Apostle useth, comparing the jewish church to an heir that is under Tutors, might teach you, that the Lord did contract with that church, how else could it ever have been his wife, and as a wife in one respect, so an heir in an other, as here the Apostle calls that church. And surely she could not be called an heir, if she had not title to an inheritance, and this than must be by covenant. Besides the church of Israel was able, and did covenant with the Lord: You labour to chain up the Lord's grace, and to bind him that he cannot promise good to the children of the faithful, or save them in Christ, except they do actually by voice and words of their own speaking, stipulate or contract with the Lord the contrary 
† Deu. 2● 10.- 15. A● 2. 39  is witnessed by the holy Ghost.  
3. The Lord did never appoint that baptism should seal up his new Tectament 
Rep.  to infants. Of this I have spoken before throughout the first treatise. 
Ans.  And for yourselves you hold that baptism sealeth up the covenant, neither to young▪ nor old, and therefore you might well have spared this particular. As for that which follows, or that infants should by his baptism be admitted in to the body of Antichrist, etc. I grant, not into the body of Antichrist, for Antichrist hath no right to any of the ordinances of God: but the question is not what he hath right unto, but whether the Lords ordinance is to be rejected together with the pollution thereof. The Lord did not appoint that Belsha●her, his princes, wyves, and concubines should drink in the vessels of the Temple, or them to be carried into Babylon: but 
* Dan. 5. 2▪ 3. 4.  they being there profaned, yet were 
“ Ezr. 1. 8.- 11.  carried out thence & served for the use of the Temple. And so do we hold of baptism, & of the scriptures, rejecting the corruptions that did cleave unto them in Popery, and applying them with their right use to ourselves.  
But the end of Christ's baptism is to manifest visibly that the party confessing his 
Rep.  sin, is sealed by the spirit unto the day of redemption, that he hath visibly put on Christ, that he is mortified, crucified, risen again etc. Rom. 6. 1.- 6. Col. 2. 12. Gal. 3. 27. These ends of baptism I deny not, but we must not deprive infants of this grace, neither exclude that 
Ans●  special end of baptism, to wit, the sealing up unto us the pomise of God, which is the thing you can not away with. I know the true believers are sealed with the spirit, (a seal invisible): so were the godly under the old Test. all that are the Lords are in Christ & have his spirit dwelling in them, else could they not be his. And it is true also that the promise of the spirit, hinders not the outward means which God hath sanctified for the begetting and increasing of our faith, for he worketh together with them.  
Seeing therefore the matter, form and end of baptism in the false church is from man, even from Antichrist, therefore the Lord is not the Author of this baptism, but the baptism is Antichrists wholly. And although he useth the words, In nomine patris, & filii, & spiritus sancti, Amen, as the Papists do in sprinkling holy water in baptizing of their bells, & as conjurers do in their charms, yet this can not make true baptism etc.  
How untrue that is which you speak of Baptism in Popery, as being 
●●s.  from Antichrist, and not from jesus Christ for the matter, etc. I have showed before. The Papists when they baptize children do intend to administer baptism, and do baptize them into the name of Christ, and not into the name of the Pope. And though they do in the use of this holy ordinance add a number of superstitious ceremonies and observations withal, yet keep they the form * set down by Christ without devising a new. And 
Mat. 2●.  therefore it is not true to say that baptism is Antichrists wholly. The abusing of the name of God by papists or conjurers in their baptizing of bells and conjurations etc. is their sin, which we leave unto themselves: the ordinance of God we retain, which we know their abuse cannot annihilate. And though you except these words, In nomine patris etc. have been profaned by the Papists, As much may be said of the scriptures. And if profanation be a cause sufficient to reject baptism, then by like reason may the scriptures be cast away. And this also you are in a reasonable forwardness, (for no translated scriptures must come in your worship) yet for some uses, you are contented to receive the scriptures, though they have been profaned, but baptism, for no use at all: because say you, it is essentially corrupted in matter, and form and use, yet not another matter, form and use: yourself hath confessed, † That if Antichrist had baptized persons confessing 
character ●g. 53.  their sins and faith, into the Trinity, it should not have been repeated. So that all this flourish that you make about the essential corruption in matter, form and use, stands in this, that you hold that infants are not capable of baptism, which is proved already against you.  
Again these corruptions in or about the matter and form of baptism are accidental, and not the changing of the matter, form and end, as before is showed. Furthermore, whereas I said, that the Israelites in their Apostasy were a false church, & you answer, If so you understand a false church, 
Rep●  viz. meetings or companies of men assembled together in a wrong place, to a wrong worship, to a wrong Priesthood, I yield Israel to be a false church, but I deny that to be the true definition of a false church. etc.  
By a false church I understand a church apostate, neither do I describe 
Answ.  a false or an apostate Church, as in the first place you set down, but such a church I hold to be in apostasy that hath 
† 2 The. ● 1 Tim. 4.  fallen from the faith and way of Christ 
* Hos. 2.  broken covenant with God, and 
“ 2 Chr. 12. 11.  forsaken him, 
† 2 Chro. 9 1 Kin. 28.- 33. 14. 9  that erects a new fellowship amongst themselves of their own invention, and worship God by the hands of false Ministers with false worship, etc. This was the state of Israel, which came to be without the 
“ 2 Chr. 1● 3.  true God, etc. and therefore she was a church in apostasy, and not the true 
* Hos. 2. ●  wi●e of the Lord. That false is contrary to true, I grant, but in that sense I never intended to call Israel a false church, as having nothing that belonged to the true church in it, no more is Antichrists such a one. Yet the having of some of God's holy things in them in a corrupt manner cannot make them true churches.  
Here you endeavour to prove Israel a false church, etc. A true church is discerned in the true causes essential, and so a false church by the want of those true causes essential, 
Repl.  the true essential causes of the church of the old Testament was the posterity of Abraham, or proselyte circumcised, the want of those things only made a false church etc.  
If this be the true definition of the church under the old Testament, 
Ans.  then what would let that the Ismaelites and Edomites, being circumcised, were not true churches, they were of the posterity of Abraham, as all do know. That Israel was an Apostate church, is before proved, and by you confessed. As to your essential causes of this church, & your carnal covenant, which is the ground of your definition, you may receive answer before, pag. 12. etc. And this more, 1. That the Israelites and proselytes were a true church so long as they walked in the ways of God, but apostating, the Lord did call them an harlot. Hos. 2, 2. 2. If these be the essential causes of that church as you have set down, than the want thereof makes them not a false church (as you say) but no Church.  
Lastly, you bring us in a double respect or consideration of members of the church 
Repl.  of Antichrist, etc. I answer, divers things 1. I do not deny but that men may be considered two ways, visibly as members of Antichrist body, invisibly, as pertaining to the Lords, election and that is the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 11. 28. but I deny that hence it followeth that when they came from their invisible being in Christ to a visible being in the true visible Church they shall enter in any way but by the door which is baptism.  
First, you grant a double consideration may be had of members of Antichrists Church, but not altogether in the same sense as I did propound it. The members of an apostate Ch. though in respect of their outward standing they have no right to the holy things of God, yet as touching the election of God, divers of them may belong unto him, whom he knoweth for his people, and calleth them out of Babylon, when and as it pleaseth him, even as that speech doth show unto us, which saith, come out of her my people etc. Rev. 18. 4. God for his promise sake made to Abraham, Isaac, and jacob did extend his love to their seed and posterity, to save so many of them as he had * elected: And when Israel fell into apostasy, did remember 
Rom. 11. ●-5.  this his promise, and called thence such as he had chosen to witness his truth, and gave them to separate from their false ways, and to return to jerusalem. Also the Lord having graffed the Gentiles in, and † made them partakers of the root and fatness of the Olive tree, vouchsafeth 
Rom. 11. 7.  his grace to them and their posterity. But their apostasy, he hateth, as he did that of the Israelites. And yet notwithstanding he hath his people 
Rom. 11. 8.  in Babylon, whom he calleth out to confess his name: for the covenant is given to the believing Gentiles, as it was formerly to the Israelites and is no more extinguished in the apostasy of Antichrist, then in the apostasy of Israel.  
And as for the meaning of Rom. 11. 28. I take to be this, that whereas 
〈◊〉. 11. 28  question might be made of the saving of the jews, they being now enemies, etc. Paul granteth that they are enemies in one respect, to wit, of the Gospel, which now they received not, yet that in an other respect, they are beloved of God, to wit, for his election and promise made to the fathers, so as through the grace of his covenant, by which he had chosen that people to himself; Israel shallbe called and engraffed again, and saved from their sins, etc. But that promise was to their fathers and their seed, and this engraffing again of the jews shallbe into that estate, from which now they are fallen, and which before time their fathers were partakers off.  
As concerning baptism, I do not read that it is called the door of 
* Ro● 3-4. 3. 27.  the Church, the scripture hath these phrases. baptized into Christ, baptized into his death, and such like. Notwithstanding in some sense it may be called the door, because it sealed unto us Christ, who is the door, and for that it is the first-ordinance, that either such as came to the Church, or that are borne in the Church are made partakers of.  
Whereas you intimate that a man being invisibly elect and having Title to the 
Re.  covenant may thereupon, 1. visibly enter into the false Church by false baptism, and then upon his repentance come to the true Church and enter thereinto not by baptism, but that the door of Antichrist shall open him the way into the Church of Christ 
Ans.  etc.  
I answer, 1. do not yourself intimate thus much concerning such as being of years, and makes themselves profession; are baptized into Antichrists Apostasy? 2. My speech was of such of God's people as are borne 
† Carra● pag. 52.  in Babylon, (which yourself calls * members of a false Church) 3. Baptism that is retained in the Apostate Church of Antichrist, is not false in that sense as you so call it, but is the ordinance of Christ there polluted, as formerly I have showed. 4. God's people coming out of Babylon do no more enter into the true Church without baptism, than those his people that separated from the apostasy of Israel came to jerusalem without circumcision, otherwise I do not intimate or speak.  
Whereas I say you intimate so much, you teach contrary to Christ, who saith we 
Re.  must go in by the door, etc. and that we must first be taught and made disciples, and then be baptized, etc.  
The door is 
* Joh. 10. ●  Christ, by whom if any man enter in he shallbe saved. 
An.  And to be baptized first & after instructed, is not contrary to Christ's commandment. The words of Christ you wrist from the true meaning thereof to thrust infants out of the covenant and from baptism, and so yourself is guilty of teaching contrary to Christ, as formerly I have proved: and you might aswell deny Baptism to women by that Scripture, Mat. 28. 19 as to infants: for Christ saith, baptize them, using the masculine gender, and not the feminine.  
Secondly, I say that no man is under the covenant or under baptism for the parent's sake and that is not the meaning of the Apostle, Rom. 11. 28. but his meaning is, that the elect of the Israelites are beloved for the promise of God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jaoob in respect of Chrict.  
This place of Rom. 11. 28. I have before expounded, Pag. 218. And that any is beloved for their parent's sake, (otherwise then in respect of gods free promise made unto them and their seed,) I mean not. Yet if we consider the Lords dispensation of his covenant, according to his grace of choosing a people to himself, (of which the Apostle also speaketh, Rom. 11. chap.) and how he conveigheth the same to the seed of believers, than it may be said, that God loveth the children for the father's fake, with whom the Lord had made his covenant so to love them.  
Not for that the children shallbe partakers of that covenant because of their parent's faith, or because of God's covenant made with their parents and their carnal infants, but because God elected them in Christ to life invisibly, etc.  
The children of believers are partakers of God's covenant, because the Lord of his free gift and mercy giving it unto their parents, includeth their seed with them, as before I have proved. And thus we are to respect the external dispensation thereof; and of this is our question, and not of the particular election, and reprobation of this or that person: For so all are not † Israel, which are of Israel. And many 
●●●. 9 6. Mat. 20. ● 16. & 25- 11. ●k. 13. 24. ●●. Mat. ● chap. 1. 2. 19 Act. 3. 25  to us are visibly within the covenant, which are not elected * to salvation. Hypocrites will lie lurking in a visible Church, which shall not be discerned until the last day, yet the holy things of God are administered unto them, and they of us are to be reputed members, because visibly they appear to us so to be. And should we not then thus reckon of the children of the faithful? the promise being made indefinitely to “ them and to their seed.  
Neither is it the carnal line that is beloved of God for his mercy sake, but the spiritual line, etc.  
I answer, God for his mercy sake loveth the line of the faithful, because of his promise (as I have said) to choose out thereof, (even out of their carnal line so to call it) such as he will save by jesus Christ: And all this line of the faithful so long as they continue in the Church, to us is holy & spiritual, though in God's election none be holy to him, but those that he hath chosen: which two things you confounding, make all this doctrine obscure unto your hearers.  
But what is this to prove that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant, for the carnal line descending from a believing ancestor? 
Re.   
I do not say that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant unto us, considered according to their outward standing: but this I say, that 
Ans.  in an apostate Church there be (though to us unknown until they come out thence) of God's people that are descended of believing ancestors, and are beloved and come under the covenant because God will be found faithful in his promise, & 
† Ex. 20.  show mercy to thousands of them that love him.  
Or if it were granted, how doth it follow that the baptism visibly receved in the 
Re.  Antichristian false Church is true baptism sealing up the covenant to them that the Lord converted in the false Church.  
I answer, that while they remain in that estate they can not make this comfortable use thereof unto themselves; but when such as be converted 
Ans.  in that false Church, do separate from the same, and turn to the Lord, having right to the covenant, they have right also to the seal, and to all the holy things of God, in that they are the people of God. And so as the word converteth, so baptism sealeth, because the efficacy thereof is of God, which can no more be hindered by the wickedness of man, than the word could be hindered from converting them that belonged to the Lord.  
Lastly, whereas you fetch the Title to the covenant and to baptism for infants in 
Re.  the false Church, from some ancestor believing, 40. generations happily before, according to that Exod. 20. 6. I answer three things. 1. You must prove that some of our Predecessors had that actual faith and were members of true Churches, and this you must prove for every member you receive in without baptism, thereby to assure you that he had title to the covenant and baptism, by his carnal line. 2. You must by the same reason receive by baptism, if you can come by them, all the infants of the Thessalonians, Galatians, Collossians, Philippians and Churches of Asia that did sometime believe. 3. I deny that you expound that place, Exod. 20. truly, for the Lord directly doth require that they, upon whom he showeth mercy should fear him and keep his commandments, etc.  
To the first particular, I answer, in that our Predecessors were all in apostasy 
Ans.  it argueth that they descended from believers. Apostasy must be from the faith once publicly defended: And where there is a public face of an Apostate church, there was formerly a public face of a church professing the truth, from which they are fallen. And even their retaining of baptism to this day, is a confirmation thereof. Again, this is witnessed by them that came out of Babylon, that they are descended from believers, whose seed the Lord now remembreth in his mercy, to do good unto. But we are not to stand upon particulars, the general estate showeth what was the precedent estate of Antichristians: neither are we to inquire any more into the particular condition of their Predecessors or parents, that come out of Babylon, than they of jerusalem did inquire into the particular estates of the forefathers of those Israelites, that left the Apostate church of jeroboam to join unto them. For receiving in without baptism you are answered before.  
To your second particular I answer, that the estate of them must be considered, whether these be in Apostasy as Rome is, or be quite fallen from the faith, and be no churches at all▪ but as infidels that believe not in jesus Christ and his word: if their estate were but apostasy, and that they believed the Scriptures, worshipped God and retained baptism, (though all these in a corrupt manner) then should we do alike unto them, as we do to the papists. But if they were become infidel's, and the candelstick removed from them, so that no steps of a church remains amongst them: then are we to receive both parents believing, and their children, into the church by baptism, as the Apostles in the like case did. Accordingly, for receiving the infants of the Thessalonians etc. if we can come by them, we hold it thus, if their parents return to the Lord and his church, or if some of the faithful undertake their education as their own children.  
In the third particular you deny, that I expound the place of Exod. 20. 6. truly. My words are set down before, pag. 213. And my meaning was this, that concerning those that are born in an apostate church, the Lord remembreth his covenant made with their forefathers that believed, & doth call of their seed, (whom it pleaseth him) to the knowledge of his truth, & faith in Christ, not regarding their immediate idolatrous and apostate 
Eze. 18. ●.- 17. ● Chro. 30. ● 11.  parents, whose sin can not * hinder God's promise: as the Lord did remember to show mercy to those of Israel that “ left that apostate church, and returned to jerusalem, as now he doth unto us. And this is all that I alleged ●his scripture for. But you in a kind of bitterness and detestation of our forefathers, do here again utterly deny that ever they believed.  
How religion came into our land, I have showed before, that there have been & are believers in it, I make no question. And whether there have been visible churches in the Apostolical constitution, I leave to be considered by the histories forenamed, and the great persecutions they suffered for the truth of Christ. And seeing there have been so many Martyrs put to death in our nation, for the witnessing of jesus Christ & his Gospel, mind well what wrong you do to your native country, in denying, that any of them did visibly believe. And of the church of Rome, it is undeniable that it was a true established church in the Apostles days.  
But you wonder at me that I should say, that seeing we are Apostates, that we had ancestors that sometime believed: and your reason is, because we are departed from the scriptures, not from the faith of our Ancestors, who never a one of them believed in a true constituted Church. There cannot be an Apostasy, or falling away from that we nor our fathers ever had. If we apostate from the faith of the scriptures, either we or our fathers 
† 2 Thes. 2.  once believed that which we are departed from, or else how is our standing apostasy?.  
But our fathers (say you) believed not in a true constituted church. Indeed I think they did never believe in such an heretical Church of Anabaptists as you account a true constituted Church, that must have all the members received in by Anabaptism, their children excluded: but this is certain, that the general face of a people standing in apostasy, doth argue that there was a face of a church before professing the faith, as in the examples of Israel and the church of Rome may be seen.  
Thus through God's providence and blessing I am come to an happy end of answering 
R●p.  your writing, wherein I praise the Lord for his mercy, I have received such assurance of the truth that all the earth shall never be able to wring it out of my heart and hands. And therefore I desire you Sir, and all the leaders of the Separati●● to weigh seriously, even betwixt the Lord and their own hearts upon their beds▪ this which is written etc.  
I am sorry to see how you deceive your own heart in a false persuasion to 
Ans.  justify your errors, and most blasphemously as it were to make God a Patron thereof, by praising him for his mercy. that you have received such assurance of the truth that all the earth shall not be able to wring it out of your heart.  
Whereas you are fallen from faith, separating yourself from the communion of all true Churches, and become a pleader for, & a practiser of old concondemned heresies, into which you are given over of God, for just cause known to himself.  
And whereas you desire me and the Leaders of the Separation (as you call them) seriously to consider of your writings: such counsel for mine own part, could I wish to yourself, to examine your writings by the Scriptures, from the meaning whereof, you have erred pitifully, and to pray unto the Lord that this evil may be forgiven you. And to remember well how quickly you fell into these errors, not conferring with others or counseling with the word of God, as you should have done: but following your own deceitful and deceiving ha●●, being strongly deluded by Satan, who still doth encourage you in this new walking, that you are persuaded it is th● undoubtedst truth that ever was revealed unto you. But know you Sir, that the works of the flesh are pleasant, whereof † heresy is one. And 
〈◊〉 5. 20.  that Satan will strongly persuade thereunto, when the Lord hath given men over to believe lies, that would not receive the love of the truth. And as you confess that you may ere in particulars, (as you do indeed) so think also that you may err in your main points of controversy, which were unheard of in the Apostolical Churches of the first age. As you have begun to recall your baptizing of yourself (as we hear) in some respect, vid in that you baptized yourself and others without lawful calling, etc. so proceed to renounce it altogether, with all your Anabaptistical errors. And let me say to you, in persuading you to return unto the truth, as you say to me in moving me to error: As you love the Lord and his truth and the people that depend upon you, embrace it, and apply not yourself to shift it of: Think it a great mercy of God to offer you any means to see your erroneous walking. I speak unto you out of my best affection towards you, and that poor deceived company, for whose fall I have great sorrow of heart. And because you adjure us in the Lord to show you your error, I have done for mine own part what it hath pleased God to enable me for the present, and so have others also taken pains, if God would give you an heart to be satisfied with the truth.  
On the back side of my answer, was written thus:  
If you reply, show your strength that we may make an end of these uncomfortable oppositions, etc.  Mr Smyth. 
Sir, there may be weight in my Reasons and you happily either cannot through prejudice, or will not, through some sinister respect, see the weight of them, I pray you be not charmed by evil counsel, but either show me mine error, or yield to the truth, I would be glad to be an instrument of showing you this truth also: at least, you by showing us our error shall discharge a good conscience: if you do not answer among you all, I proclaim you all subtly blind, and lead the blind after you into the ditch.  R. Clyfton. 
Sir, what small weight is in your Reasons I have showed in this writing. And though you think I can not through prejudice, or will not through some sinister respect, see the weight of them, mine own conscience doth clear me of both these imputations. For the Lord that knoweth the secrets of the heart, is witness, that I have not of purpose to maintain any untruth wittingly, stopped mine ears, or shut up mine eyes from any truth revealed unto me, for any sinister cause or prejudice of your person: but if I did see any further truth, I would (the Lord assisting me) receive it with all thankfulness. Neither do I hang my faith upon the persons of men, but upon the word of God, to be charmed by evil counsel, (evil you call that which condemneth your errors) but if by any man I receive further instruction or confirmation in the Lord's truth, you ought not, nor shall not dissuade me from it, call it charming, or what you wil I would to God you were no worse charmed by the counsel of Satan, than I am by those whom you point at, in these your speeches, I doubt not but we should then walk together comfortably in the house of God.  
I have showed you your error, as you desire. And for this truth (as you falsely call it) that you would be glad to impart unto me, I dare not herein make you glad, but wish rather that you might be sorry, that we might rejoice in your conversion. 〈◊〉 any former truths whereof you have been an instrument of mine 〈…〉 ction, which you insinuate in this word, also, I am thankful to God for ●●: But if you remember, that truth that you informed me of, was concerning the trueness of this Church whereof I stand a member, which you now hold to be Antichristian. And therefore if I had not had better ground for my practice, and builded my faith herein upon the word, your revolting would have sent me back again to my former estate.  
For your proclaiming of us all subtly blind, if we answer you not. In this you show still the loftiness of your spirit, as if men were bound to answer you in every thing you writ. Now you are answered both to this and to your other heretical book of Differences, etc. And if you further oppose against the truth, I trust the Lord will arm his Servants to contend for the faith once given to the Saints. Our cause is Gods, we fear not your forces.  
Rich. Clyfton.   
FINIS.  
1610     

Faults escaped.  
Pag. 20. line 27. the Christ, put out, the.  
Pag. 21. line 3. for him, read, them.  
Pag. 80. line 3. for kithin, read, within.  
Pag. 130. line 18. for females, read males.  
Pag. 139. line 19 read, be saved.  
Pag. 173. line 14, how if, put out, how.  
Pag. 149. line 4. for Rich: Clifton, read Mr Smyth. and after line 6. read, Rich: Clifton.  
Pag. 181. line 7. put out, In Israel.  
Pag. 187. line 20. for many, read, may.  
Other faults may easily be discerned.