belongs not the covenant but to â—ne it to them which plainly appeare to vs to bee without Therfore if no man dare take vpon him to say this or that infant is carnall without the covenant of grace it shal be no profanation of the SacrameÌ„t if it be administred vnto such seing 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 al the seed of the faithful are carnal so to beheld vntil they beleeve make confession of their faith I answer first if they take carnal as it is opposed to the children of promise in Rom. 9.8 I vterly deny it for the children of the Flesh can never be the children of promise Rom. 9.8.13 These two seeds are made so opposite by the Apostle as that the one can never be the other Secondly if by carnal they meane nothing els but that natural corruption wherein we are borne That hinders infants no more from baptisme then it doth those that can give an account of their faith seing natural corruption remaineth stil in the purest professor Rom. 7.23 if it be replyed that their natural corruption is not imputed to them that beleeve no more say I is it to infants els Christ dyed not for them neither could they be saved dying whilst they be yong Lastly if Abrah knowing that God would establish his covenant to Isaac Genes 17 19. yet circumcised Ismael vs 24. Isaac knowing that God had chosen his yonger sonne Gen. 25.23 with 27.33 yet circuÌ„cised Esau aswel as Iacob in so doing neither of them profaned the Sacrament much lesse is baptisme profaned when it is administred to the seed of the faithful to whom belongeth the promise Act. 2.39 And thus having shewed the weaknes of these 3. reasons against the baptising of infants let vs come to the second position which is this Iohn Smyth In the next place followeth your answer to my third Argum which Argum of myne may be framed into this forme The carnal seed is not to bee baptized For the covenant perteyneth not to them Infants are the carnal seed Rom. 9.8 Ergo infants are not to be baptized To this Argument you make Answer also in 4. particulars First you expound my meaning but I can expound myne owne words best therfor by the carnal seed I vnderstand al children borne by carnal generatioÌ„ whatsoever though they afterward do beleeve For they are carnal visibly to mee whosoever they bee that doe not shew their Fayth by their workes that doe not the workes of Abrah yea though they dye in their infancy are saved with the Lord For I must judg according to that which I see which is manifested I call them carnall as Paul calleth himself carnal Rom 7.14 the Corinthians carnal 1. Cor. 3.1.3 as in opposition to the Spiritual seed that one seed of Abrah vnto whome the promise was made Gal. 3.16 the Phrase is taken from Rom. 9.8 where the children of the Iewes are called the children of the Flesh Gal. â— 23 wher Ismael is said to bee borne after the Flesh Heb. 7.16 the commaundement is called carnal So children borne of their parents naturally are carnal such were al the Iewes infants who were after the manner of Ismael Gal. 4.23 Such are al our infants for our infants are in no better estate then the infants of the Iewes They were al borne according to the Flesh except Isaac who was in type burne after the Spirit Gal. 4.24.25.28 I say that the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually fease vppon any infant of the Iewes in deed truth the place Act. 2.39 doth not prove that it did For that place is to be vnderstood of the offer of Christ the New Testament to all he carnal Iewes their children but of the real exhibiting â—t to al that are called only therefore I say that to baptise infants is to baptize the carnal seed for al infants are carnal being conceaved 〈◊〉 borne in since being the Children or wrath vntill the Lord work his work in them which when he doth I know not when I see it wrought in them by the fruites according as it is written sâ—ew mee thy Faith by thy workes then dare I pronounce them the Spirituall seed of Abrah for they that are of Faith are blessed with Faythfull Abraham Therefore I affirme that infants are not to bee esteemed actually vnder the possession of the new Testament which new Testament is visible in the visible ordinances the of why then they are damned you wil say God forbid doe you condemne al the men that are not of your Faith yet they are neerer condemnation in â—â—e judgment of the Scripture to you then infants for Chr. saith that he that beleveth 〈◊〉 speaking of them that heare the gospel do not beleve shal be condemâ—â—â— but the Scripture teacheth vs nothing concerning the final estate of infants except it bâ—â— the salâ—ation of them al This is my exposition Now according to your exposition I should intend that bicause it is not discerned which children are Spiritual seed which the carnal therefor both of them must be deprived of baptisme lest by giving baptisme which you falsely cal a seale I therin speak according to your opinion to al it should bee profaned by the carnall seed wel suppose that this were my meaning what then you except against this exposition two things one that the Spiritual seed should be injuried by denying baptisme to it for the carnal seeds sake 〈◊〉 I reply by giving baptisme to all indifferently wee should injury baptisme that is to bee administred only vppon them that confesse their Faith sinnes that are made Disciples by teaching another thing you except is that this reason should avayle against circumcision seing the mâ—â—es of 8. dayes could not be discerned to be the Spiritual seed I insist that it was not then needful that they should be discerned to be the Spiritual seed for that carnal seale of the carnal covenant it was enough for investing of them with that carnal typical seale that they were the carnal typical seed that they were male Israelites or Proselytes shew me in al the old Testament but especially in the institution of circumcision that the Lord required any thing of any person to be circumcised but to be a male but now in the new Testament we having the truths of those types it is plainly taught vnto vs first that Christ the male must bee in vs â— that theâ—r must bee circumcision of the hart mortification of the Flesh 3. wee must attayne to learne all that the Schoolm of the Old Testament could teach vs before wee can bee baptized for Iohn Chr. expresly require Faith repentance in them that are to be baptized I do infinitely wonder at you
merciful promise made to them but what is this to prove that Antic are beloved vnder the covenant for their carnal line descending from a beleving auncestor or if that were granted how doth it follow that the baptisme visibly receaved in the Antich false Chu is true baptisme sealing vp the covenant to them that the L. converteth in the false Chu No we have already proved that the baptisme is essentially false none of Chr. therfor it is the character or mark of the beast openly retained in the forhead of al the subjects of Antic who professing themselves to be of that baptisme do professe theÌ„selves to be of that body for of that body they are of whose baptisme they are of that baptisme they are of whose body they are 1. Cor. 12.13 Eph. 4.4 Gal. 3.27 we have also proved that the L. true baptisme doth not aperteyne to the carnal line but only to them that are of Abrah faith that is actually beleeving to justification shewing the faith of Abraham by the works of Abrah Lastly wheras you fetch the title to the covenant 〈◊〉 to baptisme for infants in the false Chu from some auncestor beleving 40. generations happily before acording to that Exo. 20. that the L. sheweth mercy to 1000. generations of them that love him I answer 3. things 1. you must prove that some off our predecessors had true actual saith were members of true Ch. this you must prove for every member you receave in without baptisme therby to assure you that he had title to the covenaÌ„t to baptisme by his carnal line 2. you must by the same reason receave by baptisme into the true Chu if you can come by theÌ„ al the infants of the Thessalonians the Ephesians the Galatians the Colossians the Philippians the Chu of Asia that did somtime beleve 3. I deny that you expound the place Exo. 22. truly For the L. directly doth require that they vpon whom hee sheweth mercy should feare him keep his commaundem I do vtterly deny that ever the fore-Fathers of the English nation beleved you can never prove it For that which you say that seing we are Apostates therfor it followeth that somtyme we or our auncesters had the truth I wonder at you for so saying for we are departed froÌ„ the faith of the Scriptures not from the faith of our auncestors who never a one of them at any tyme beleved visibly in a true constituted Chu Thus through Gods providence blessing I am come to a happy end of answering your writing wherin I praise the L. for his mercy I have receved such assurance of the truth as that you al the earth shal never be able to wring it out of my hart hands therfor I desire you Sir al the leaders of the Seperation to weigh seriously even betwixt the L. their own harts vpon their beds this which is written I doubt not but I may erre in particulars I have resolved to be vile befor men in confessing my erors but for the maine points in controversy the cause I defend it is the most vndoubted most evident â—oth that ever was revealed to me therfor as you love the L. his truth the people that depend vpon you seek it out embrace it resist it not but if we bee in error shew it vnto vs why shal we perish through your default wil not the L. require our blood at your hand are we not your countrymen al of vs in exile for the common truths we hold out against Antich Answer we beseech you in the L nay we adjure you in the Lord if we be in error it is ignorantly of a desire to see the truth to feare the L Thus hoping speedily either to heare an answer to this writing or to see you yeeld to the truth which I vnfeynedly ask of the Lo for you my countrymen I end writing this 24. of March 1608. Iohn Smyth Rich. Clifton If you reply shew your strength that we may make an end of these vncomfortable oppositions for if I see not weight in your reasons I wil bestow no more labour Ioh. Smyth Sir ther may be weight in my reasons you happily either cannot through prejudice or wil not through some sinister respect se the weight of them I pray you be not charmed by evil counsel but either shew me my error or yeeld to the truth I would be glad to be an instrument of shewing you this truth also at least you by shewing vs our error shal discharg a good conscience If you do not answer among you al I proclayme you are subtilly blind lead the blind after you into the ditch FINIS
actually beleeving actually justified by the righteousnes of Fayth as Abraham the Father of al the Faithful was Roman 4.11 whence this Argument may bee framed Abraham is the Father of al them that actually beleeve Infants do not actually beleeve Ergo Abraham is not the Father of infants so infants are not vnder the covenant of Abraham Againe Abrahams covenant was only to Abrahams one seed that is only to the beleevers Infants are not actuall beleevers Ergo Abrahams covenant is not to infants so infants are not vnder the everlasting covenant of Abraham Againe They that are the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham Infants cannot do the workes of Abraham Ergo infants are not the children of Abraham so not vnder the covenant of Abraham Againe I reason thus They that are not vnder the everlasting covenant made with Abraham shal not be baptized Infants are not vnder the everlasting covenant of Abraham Ergo infants are not to be baptized These many other such Arguments may be colected out of the answer to this fourth Argument of yours but these shal suffice Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. Corinth 10.1.2 If the infants of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud in the sea as well as their parents what letteth the infants of beleeving parents vnder the gospel to bee likewise partakers of baptisma aswel as they The former the Apostle affirmes 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therefore good warrant must bee shewed that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes Children had And if the former Baptisme of the Iewes was a Type of our Baptisme then must there bee an agreement betweene the Type the thing Typed which is not if our Children bee not baptized as well 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 denyed to their children which God gave to his people to their infants vnder the Law is to deny them in regard of their seed the like assurance comfort which the Israelites had of theirs And so to make our estate worse more vncomfortable then theirs was yet the Prophets prophecyed of the grace that should come to vs did inquire seach after the same 1 Pet. 1.10 Glad tydings were preached to Abraham his seed to infants of eight dayes old Gal. 3.8 And this before Christ came in the Flesh therefore much more he being come is joyful trydings brought vnto vs our infants so are we to beleve that the grace of God is not lessened either towards vs or our children but inlarged by his comming Iohn Smyth Your 5. argument is taken from 1. Cor. 10.1.2 framed thus If the infāts of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud in the sea aswel as their parents what letteth the infants of beleving parents vnder the gospel to be likewise partakers of baptisme aswel as they The former the Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therfor good warant must be shewed that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes children had that baptisme being a type of our baptisme To this argument I make answer by framing the like argument If their infants did eate the same Spiritual meate drink which the parents did eate then why may not our infants being able to eate drinck eate drinck the Lords Supper The former the Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therfor good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut of from the priviledg those sacramēts were types of our Sacraments Againe I answer more properly thus That ther shal be a proportion betwixt the Type the truth that baptisme of the cloud sea our baptisme viz that as yong old carnal Israelites were baptized in the cloud sea so yong old Spiritual true Israelites shal be baptized by the baptisme of repētance as the carnal parents with their carnal children were baptized in type So Spiritual parents with their Spiritual children that is such as are regenerate by the word Spirit shall bee baptized with the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes which is baptisme in truth Further I say That our infants shal have a priviledg fair greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that typical baptisme For they by it were only baptized into Moses the Law That by it they might learne Moses in Moses the truth in Chr. as it were vnder a vele but our infants vnder the gospel shal have the dayly institution education of Faithful parents which is infinitely superior to that darke pedagogical baptisme al the baptismes ordinances of the old Testament Seing that with open face they may in the preaching of the gospel see Christ Iesus not vnder the vele of Moses Moreover I deny that the baptisme of the cloud sea was a type of the external baptisme of the new Testament in the abstract but it was a type of our baptisme in the concrete that is the baptisme of the cloud did Type out our baptisme in the 3. parts therof viz. 1. The baptisme of the Spirit 2. The declaration of Faith repentance the antecedent of baptisme with water 3. The outward washing with water a manifestation of the foresaid particulars all these to bee conferred vppon infants proportionable to those infants that is New borne babes in Christ And whereas you further alledg that if your infants bee not baptized the Lords bounty is shortned to vs our infants our confort is diminished in respect of our infants which they had in respect of theirs the gospel is not preached to our infants as it was to theirs I answer that Gods bounty our confort in respect of our infants the preaching of the glad tydings of the gospel is as large ample every way to our infants as to theirs For Gods bounty of the actual exhibiting and fealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham al his carnall infants was never extant in the Old Testament Neither were the parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it vppon their infants circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then as he is preached now to infants but what could the preaching of Christ profit infants either then in types or now in truth Neyther doe I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infant any thing at that instant but afterward hee was to learne that which the Schoolemr circumcision vppon his Flesh taught him viz the circumcision of the hart if you say that so infants baptized are to be instructed I answer that in the New Testament by baptisme wee manifest what wee have namely the inward baptisme whereas in the Old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not but ought to have viz The inward circumcision of the hart mortification of the sinnefull Flesh. Mr. Rich. Clifton Mat. 28.19 If