The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · John Smith 14 – Richard Clifton 16
Iohn Smyth.
Your ſecond argument followeth which is this in effect.
As the Babilonians abuſe of the veſſels of the L. howſe did not make a nullity of them, but they were vſed after the captivity, Ezra. 1.11. ſo the Antichriſtian abuſe of baptiſme cannot diſanul it, but it may bee retayned when men come to the Fayth: & it needeth not to be reiterated, no more then the veſſels of the howſe of the Lord be new caſt,
I answer many things: Firſt, this arg. is an excellent arg. for the retayning of idoll Temples, the worship, government, miniſtery of the eccleſiaſtical aſſemblies of England: if it be ſaid they were never apointed by God, ſo ſay…, that baptiſme of theirs was never apointed by God: but is the deviſe of Antichriſt.
Secondly, I answer, that the veſſels of the Lords howſe were his owne ordināces, & therfor need not to be new caſt: but the baptiſme of Antichr. is not the L. owne ordinance who never ordeyned it: for you muſt diſtinguish them thus: The veſſels of the L. howſe were ſubſtances framed by art into particular shapes at the L. apointement but the baptiſme of the L. is a compound or concrete ordinance or action limited in certaine eſſential particulars: not being a ſubſtance but an accident in definition now if Antic had retained the eſſential parts of baptiſme, I confeſſe it needed not to be repeated, no more then the veſſels of the L, houſe need to be new caſt after the abuſe of the Babilonians: but ſeing baptiſme in popery & Antichriſtianiſme, is not the L. ordinance in the definition of it, but Antich. invention: Therefor though the veſſels of the L. howſe may be retayned, yet baptiſme may not: That baptiſme is Antichr. invention in the definition of it, I manifeſt thus: The matter of baptiſme, & the forme of baptiſme is invented by Antich. go: it is an invention of antichriſt in the definition: The matter of antichriſtian baptiſme is a carnal infant: The forme is, washing one into the covenant that cannot conſent to the covenant: or baptiſing without a contract & ſealing the covenāts on both parts for the L. doth not ſeale to the infant, and the infant cannot ſeale to the Lord: As I have manifeſted already in the answer to the former argum. of yours: Therefore the baptiſme of antichr. is in the definition of it the meer deviſe of antichr. For the Scripture deſcribeth true baptiſme which is the Lords owne ordinance thus: The matter muſt bee one that confeſſeth his Fayth & his ſinnes, one that is regenerate & borne againe: The forme muſt bee a voluntary delivering vp of the party baptized into the Name of the Father, Sonne, & Holy Spirit, by washing with water, Mat. 28.19. Mat. 3.6. Iohn. ….1. Act. 2.41. & 8.36.37. compared with Roman 6.17. & Mat. 28. 20. & 18.20. & Gal. 3.27. & Roman. 6.2-6. VVherein ther muſt be a mutual conſent of both perſons contracting together: & that this is ſo, the forme of baptiſme retayned in popery yet, teacheth plainly: wher they ſay. Credis? Credo: Abrenunti…s? abrenuntio: which other perſons ſpeak for the infant that cannot ſpeak, therby declaring that ther muſt needs bee a mutual contract of both the parties contracting: This ordinance of the L. therfor is abolished both in the matter & forme, & an other ſtraunge invention of man is in the rome therof ſubſtituted, which is not the L. & therfor a nullity, & as if the Babylonians should have framed a Temple altar, arck, or candleſtick, after their deviſe, & given them to the people of the Iewes, they could not have retayned them & vſed them to VVorship God withall: So cannot true Chriſtians retayne Antichriſtian baptiſme which is deviſed in the definition of it.
Thirdly, I answer, that if the Antichriſtians had baptized perſons confeſſing their ſinnes & their Faith into the name of the Sonne of God, & the Trinity, it had then been true baptiſme though in the hands of the Antichriſtians, as the veſſels of the L. howſe, in the hands or the Caldees, & therfor needed no repetition, as theſe veſſels needed no new caſting: Therfor we keep the Scriptures ſtill though they abuſe them, & the Church, miniſtery, worship, & government taught in the Scriptures though they have poluted thē: but their deviſed word, that is their Apocrypha writings & falſe doctrine, & their deviſed church conſiſting of carnal infants & perſons vnbaptized, & their deviſed worship of the maſſe, & their deviſed miniſtery of the ſacrificing Preiſthood, & their deviſed government of the Prelacy we abhorre, & vtterly reject, as the very deviſed Idols of antic. & we wil no more retaine thē thē the Shrines of Diana, then the Iews would the wedg of Achā: ſo ſay we of his baptiſme.
And heer you answer two objections.
Firſt, that though the Antichriſtians that adminiſter baptiſme bee Idolaters, yet it may bee true baptiſme aswel as circumciſion true by the Iſraelites that were Idolaters: & that the efficacy of the word & Sacraments dependeth not vponupon the worth of the miniſter: as circumciſion by Zipporah declareth, Exod. 4-5. I answer: Firſt, what ſay you to Ciprian the auncient Fathers, & all the counſel of leaned Bbs. who concluded that the baptiſme of Heretiques was a nullity & decreed rebaptiſing.
Secondly I ſay that the Iſraelites circumciſion was in a true church & antich. baptiſme is in a falſe Church & that is a diſſimilitude.
Thirdly, I know nothing …o the contrary, but Zipporah might circumciſe her Sonne, her husband commaunding her (for where is it ſaid in al the Old Teſtament that a woman shal not circumciſe) for Moſes indeed did circumciſe though Zipporah was the hand of Moſes in the action, as it is the Kings action if the L. Chauncellor of the judg of an aſſiſe do it. Fourthly I yee'd that the Miniſter shal not prejudice baptiſme, if the baptiſme bee the Lords owne ordinance, that is, if a perſon bee inveſted with baptiſme true in the definition: & yet you know that the baptiſwe of weomen is ſtrongly queſtioned, & I beleeve it would trouble you to ſatiſfie a doubt made of a midwifes baptiſme in England, that it ought not to bee repeated, or of a Child baptiſing others as Athanaſius did in ſport, (which Alexander Bb. of Alexandria with his Clerkes did approve) whither it ought to bee repeated yea or nay: but I leave this point as being but off ſmall importance.
The ſecond objection you answer is, that although baptiſme be adminiſtred in a falſe Church of Antichriſt vppon an vnfit ſubject, yet it shal not be repeated, no more then circumciſion in the dayes of Ieroboam & Ahab, it being adminiſtred vppon an vnfit ſubject: I ſay, as I have ſaid divers tymes, that the Iſraelites infants in their defection were the ſubject that God commaunded to be circumciſed, viz: the ſeed of Abrah. males of 8. dayes age. So are not the infants in Antichriſtianiſme, both for that they are 1. infants, 2. members of a falſe Church, 3. The ſeed of vnbelevers which by your owne confeſſion have no title to baptiſme: & whereas you ſay that the covenant of Abrah. in reſpect of Chr. did as truly belong to the Gentils after the comming of Chr. as it did to the Iſraelites though both in defection: I deny it: For the carnal covenant belonged to the Iſraelites the carnal ſeed of Abrah. even in their parents Apoſtacy, & the Spiritual covenant made with Abrah. in reſpect of Chr. did never aperteyne to the 1. Apoſtate parents, 2. much leſſe to the infants of them in their Apoſtacy, 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved, & Gal. 2.14. is not to be vnderſtood of the bleſſing of Abrah. to come vponupon any of the Gentils in their Apoſtacy, but only being in Chriſt, as the words are, alſo vſus. 7. & 9. but the externall Covenant was made with Abraham & the carnall Iſraelites onelyonly vppon the condition of circumciſion carnally vppon the males of eigt dayes old, Gen. 17.10.
Mr. Rich. Clifton.
If the word of God paſſing through the falſe miniſtery of Antichriſt, was of force to convert Gods elect in Babylon, thē is baptiſme paſſing likewiſe thorow their falſe miniſtery of force to ſeale vp Gods covenant vntounto them, & ſo conſequently not to be reiterated.
But the firſt is true Apoc. 18.4. For in Babylon were Gods people converted, other ordinary Miniſtery was ther none, but that falſe Miniſtery of the Papiſts: & therfor it is apparent that God made thereby his word effectuall to all them that beleeve.
Ergo &c.
If it be objected, that if God should convert his people by an Antichriſtian miniſtery, it were to give approbation to a falſe miniſtery, & to teach that men might lawfully vſe it, which is abſurd: I answer, for vsus to vſe a falſe Miniſtery is vnlawfull, but it is no more abſurd or yet any approbation of a falſe miniſtery, for God to worke therby the good of his owne people, then it was his approving of the evill ſervice of Ioſephs brethren ſelling him into Egypt, bicauſe he vſed theire Miniſtery, for the ſaving of Iacob & his houshold, for God can worke good by an evill inſtrument.
If it bee ſtill vrged, that the Antichriſtian Miniſters had no calling to baptiſe, I ſay no more had the Iewes to put Chriſt to death; yet was his ſuffering awayleable to ſave all that beleeve: & ſo is the Sacrament to al Gods people awayleable to ſeale vp ſalvation vntounto them.
Iohn Smyth.
Your third Argument followeth which is this in effect.
The word in the falſe Miniſtery of Antichriſt is avayleable to convert: Ergo: The baptiſme is alſo avayleable to ſeale vp the covenant to the converted, & ſo need not be repeated.
I answer: Firſt the word converteth none viſibly to me particularly known: So cā baptiſme ſeale vp none viſibly to me: what they do both in ſecreat the L. knoweth & what the word doth generally I know by that place Rev. 18.4. Alſo what the baptiſme doth ſpecially I know, for God ſaith plainly whoſoever receaveth the mark of the beaſt in his forehead shal perish, Rev. 14.9-11. this mark is vndoubtedly baptiſme wherby they are initiated into Antichriſt, & receave his mark, as Chriſts Servants in baptiſme receave his ſeale vppon them: (remember I cal baptiſme a ſeale in the concrete, or according to your opinion. For otherwiſe I deny it to be a ſeale) ſo that Antichriſtian Baptiſme is rather a ſeale of perdition to the Antichriſtians, then of the covenant or Salvation by Chriſt: & therfor it is to be renounced.
Secondly, Antichriſts baptiſme falſe (as I have ſaid) in the difinitiō is none of Gods ordinance no not in the hands of the moſt faithful miniſter of rhe world: but Gods word is the Lords ordinance, though in the mouth of the moſt vile Iudas or Antichriſtian in the world, yea though it be in the mixture of a 1000 hereſies: So that in this reſpect alſo it followeth not that though Gods word may convert in popery, therfor Antichriſts baptiſme may ſeale: but ſtil you build vppon a falſe fondacion as you ſee, aſſuming that which is the queſtion, viz: That baptiſme in popery is the Lords.
Thirdly, I answer againe, that if Antichriſt had reteyned the L. true baptiſme, as I have deſcribed true I ſay in the definition, viz: That he had baptized perſons confeſſing their ſinnes & faith into the Trinity, or into Ieſus Chriſt, it should not have been repeated: but ſeing he intendeth in baptiſme, to ſet an indelible character vponupon them which is the mark of the beaſt, to conferre grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth, another promiſing & answering for them Credo & Abrenuntio which the party baptized should himſelf performe, hence I conclude that he hath ſet vp his owne idol of abhomination, & caſt the L. holy ordinance away, having eſſentialy deſtroyed the primitive Apoſtolique baptiſme go his baptiſme is a nullity or rather a ſeale of perdition to them that retaine it.
The amplification which you bring to this Argument I omit as a thing not denyed, but yeelded vntounto that God can work by a falſe Miniſtery, evil inſtruments, & bad meanes, but hence it wil not follow that we may retaine the mark of the beaſt, no more then we may retaine the miniſtery of Antichriſt, the Church of Antichriſt, the Government of Antichriſt.
Mr. Rich. Clifton.
Thoſe Holy things which God by his mercifull providence hath preſerved for his people through the hands of profane perſons, are not to be rejected for the Authors ſake, Ezra. 1.11.
But the Scriptures & baptiſme hath God preſerved in the popish aſſemblies for the benefit of his people.
Therfor not to be rejected for the Authors ſake.
If it be objected againſt the minor, it is not true baptiſme but falſe, that is adminiſtred in the aſſemblies of Antichr. I answer, though it may be ſaid to be falſe, in regard of ſome humane deviſes vſed in the adminiſtration thereof yet is it true baptiſme in reſpect of the matter, forme, & Author therof, which cauſeth it to have a true being.