The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · John Smith 16 – Richard Clifton 18
Iohn Smyth.
Your fourth Argument followeth, which is this.
Theſe Holy things which God by his merciful providence hath preſerved for his people, though 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.
The minor you prove thus, ſaying the baptiſme though falſe in reſpect of humane deviſes vſed in the miniſtration therof, yet is true in reſpect of the matter, forme & Author therof: & in your answer to my ſecond Arg. you ſay: the author of baptiſme in the Kingdom of Antichr. is Chr. the matter water: the forme washing with water into the Trinity.
I answer directely, that if it could bee proved that baptiſme in the Kingdome of Antichriſt is appointed by Chriſt, & that water is the true matter of baptiſme, & the true forme is washing into the Trinity, I would yeeld vntounto you: but this you have not proved, & I have already proved the contrary: but yet to deale ſomthing more fully in this point which is the mayne pillar & cheef corner Stone of the fondacion, I ſay: 1. VVater is not the matter of baptiſme, but onelyonly the inſtrument of baptiſme: For as fire is the inſtrument of burning, ſo is VVater of washing: the matter of burning is the fewel that is burnt, So the matter of washing is the party washed: For as wee ſay accident is eſſe eſt ineſſe: & the ſubject is al the matter of an accident: & as the matter of the Church are the Diſciples of Sayntes: The matter of the Miniſtery are the Prophets, ſo the matter of baptiſme is the perſons, vppon whome baptiſme is conferred, & on whome it is. It is falſe therfor which you affirme that water is the matter of baptiſme. 2. I ſay that washing into the Name of the Father, Sonne, & Holy Ghoſt, is not the forme of Baptiſme: For to wash a Turk, Iew, Foole, mad Man, or infant into the Trinity is not …ne baptiſme: but it were ſo, if ſimply to baptize into the Trinity were the forme of baptiſme: Therefore to baptiſe the true matter into the true Fayth, or into Chriſt, or the New Teſtament, or the Trinity, or into the true body, is the true forme of baptiſme: So that the true matter of baptiſme is a new creature: one regenerate: a confeſſor. As the true matter of circumciſion was a male of eigt dayes old eyther lineally deſcending of Abraham, or a Proſelite: So the true matter of baptiſme is a perſon that is of the Fayth of Abraham, one that hath the male Chriſt formed in him: The true forme of baptiſme cōſiſteth in three things, (1.) washing with water, (2.) a new Creature, (3.) into the Name of Chr. or into the Trinity, for I think wee are not tyed to forme of words. & ſo if antichr. hath washed any, I ſay, I wil never conſent that they shalbe rebaptized, but hold that Anabaptiſtery true hereſy.
But if an infant that is not the matter of baptiſme, or a wicked man, mad man, foole, Turk, or Iew, or any Pagan bee washed with water into the Trinity, I ſay ther is neyther true matter nor forme of baptiſme, & Chriſt is not the author thereof: & therfor the baptiſme of antichriſt is not Chriſts, but his owne, & ſo all infants baptized by antichriſt are eyther vnbaptized or have the marke of the beaſt, & ſo are to renounce it, & to receave Chriſts marke of baptiſme, or els woe bee to them: & when they shall manifeſt a new creature, & Chriſt the male is formed in them, & they confeſſe with their mouth & then be baptized into the Trinity, this is not anabaptiſtery, but the true primitive Apoſtolique Baptiſme, & ſo Chriſt, Iohn, Chriſts Apoſtles were anabaptiſts with you Sir: For they baptized men that had been washed before a thouſand tymes with the Iewes baptiſmes, Heb. 9.10. which baptiſmes were alſo into the Meſſias (no doubt) in thoſe that ſaw the end off thoſe Figures: But if it bee blaſphemy to ſay that Chriſt, Iohn, & the Apoſtles were Anabaptiſts, though they were of tymes ſome of them baptized into the Meſſiah in Type, bicauſe they were onelyonly once baptized truly & indeed: So shal it bee blaſphemy in all them that call the true Chriſtians anabaptiſts, that baptize new Creatures once onelyonly into Chriſt, though baptized before by antichriſt in their infancy when they knew not the right hand from the left, or what a new creature, or the New Teſtament, or Chriſt, or Baptiſme, or any thing els was: hence therefore I conclude vndenyably that ſeing Popish baptiſme hath a falſe matter, & a falſe forme, therefore it is antichriſts Idoll aſmuch as a falſe Miniſtery, & a falſe Church is: & ſo the Lord is not the author of it: & therevppon though the Scriptures & Gods word bee retayned by Gods providence & in the word all the Holy things of God, through Popery: yet in the Popish Churches ther is no true Church, Miniſtery, VVorship, or Government, nor true Baptiſme, but all falſe and Antichriſtian: and ſo to bee rejected, and the truth to bee aſſumed out of the Scriptures: and ſo this argument off yours is answered.
Mr. Rich. Clifton.
If antichriſt be not the author of baptiſme, but of ſome humane deviſes annexed, vntounto in the adminiſtration thereof: then are wee not to plucke vp the whea…e with the …ares, Mat. 13.29. And to caſt away that which is Chriſts with Antichr. but to Seperate from that which is mans invention, & ſtil to retayne that which is of God.
But to baptiſe with water into the name of the Father, & of the Sonne, & of the holy Ghoſt, Mat. 28.19. is from heaven, & not from Antichriſt.
Ergo, we ought not to caſt it away, but thoſe traditions where with Antichriſt hath polluted it: as for exāple, King Ioſias & before him K. Ezechias, when both the Land & Temple were poluted) 2. King. 21.7. & 23.7. did not pul downe the Temple but appointed the Prieſts to clenſe it, who did ſo, & brought out al the vncleanes that they had found in the howſe of God, 2. Chro. 29.16.17.18. & 34.8. For in reformacion of things, difference muſt be put betwene thoſe things, wherof God is the Author, & ſuch as are deviſed by man: The former is to be purged from all profanation, & the things ſtill to bee retayned, the other to bee quyte abolished. This rule in all reformation off Religion ought to bee followed.
Iohn Smyth.
The fifth Argument followeth, which is this in effect.
We muſt not pluck vp the wheate with the tares, Mat. 13.29. nor caſt away that which is Chriſts, when we caſt away that which is Antichriſts.
But to Baptize with VVater into the Name of the Trinity is Chriſts & not Antichriſts.
Ergo, wee ought not to caſt that away, but only the traditions of Antichriſt.
So did Ioſiah & Hezechiah, 2. King. 21.7. & 23.4. & 2. Chron. 29.16-18. & 34.8. not pul downe the Temple, but clenſe it, &c. that wherof God is the Author muſt be kept, & the corruption or pollution put away: that wherof man is the Author, is quite to be abolished: This is your reaſon.
I answer: That as when the Babylonians had vtterly deſtroyed the Temple, the Iewes built it againe: So when Antichriſt hath vtterly deſtroyed the true Temple, the true Church, then muſt we build it vp againe, & when Antichriſt hath deſtroyed the true baptiſme, then muſt we reare it vp againe: Wherfor ſeing as is shewed befor Antichriſt hath abolished the true baptiſme of Chr. in the definition or in the matter & forme therof, & hath reared a baptiſme of his owne, it muſt therfor be abolished: & as when we do renounce the falſe Church or Miniſtery, wee do not renounce that which is true in the falſe Church or Miniſtery, but onelyonly the falſehood ſo in rejecting the falſe baptiſme of Antichr. we do not renounce that which is true in it as to wash with water into the Name of the Father, Sonne & Holy Ghoſt: but onelyonly the falſehood: And yet as when wee retayne the truth in a falſe Church, or Miniſtery, wee reject the Falſehood in them both, & erect both a new true Church & Miniſtery: So when wee retayne the truth of a falſe baptiſme, wee reject the Falſehood & erect a true new baptiſme: & this is evident if you conſider it wel.
Againe, ſeing in the falſe baptiſme, church, & miniſtery, the corruptions are eſſential, & the truth only accidental: & truth & falſehood are ſo intermingled as we can not divide them aſunder, aſſuming the one & leaving the other, but we muſt needes in renouncing the eſſential corruptions reſerve the accidental truths & iterate or repeate the accidental truthes if we wil have the eſſential truth which Antichriſt had abolished: Therfor neceſſarily we muſt for having true baptiſme repeate washing in to the name of the Father, Sonne, & Holy Ghoſt, which are but accidentals (for a Turck ſo washed is not baptized) & once onelyonly wash a new borne babe in Chriſt, into the truth which is true eſſentiall baptiſme which Antichriſt had abolished, & which wee onelyonly reſtore & nothing els: & ſo your argument is anſwered.
Mr. Rich. Clifton.
As God hath made an everlaſting covenant with Abraham & his ſeed, Gen. 17.7 which through the malice of Sathan & al his inſtruments shal never be cut of: ſo hath he preſerved, both in the Apoſtacy vnderunder the Law & goſpel, the ſeales thereof, for the comfort of the Faithful.
And therfor the Anabaptiſts in rejecting that baptiſme of Chriſt, whereof they were pertakers in the Apoſtate Church: & deviſing a new, do bring in a new covenant & a new goſpel, taking vppon them to baptize themſelves without warrant from the word: For I am ſure it cannot be shewed, that any did ever baptize himſelf without ſpecial commaundement from God, as Abrah. had for circumciſion, Gen. 17.9. or Iohn for baptiſme, Marc. 1.3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling. Ioh. 4.2. Mat. 3.6. Act. 8.38. & 9.18. & 10-48.
If it be ſayd the tymes bee extraordinary. I answere, the Lord hath left eyther example or rule, or ground of rule, whereby wee may in extraordinary tymes have a ſure warrant out of the word, to informe vsus in any thing that wee ought to doe.