The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · John Smith 18
Iohn Smyth.
Your 6. argument is thus much in effect.
That ſeing the covenant made with Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt, is everlaſting: Geneſ. 17.7. & cannot by the malice of Sathan bee cut of: no more can the malice of Sathan abolish the ſeales of that covenant vnderunder the Law or goſpel, viz: circumciſion & baptiſme.
I answer by an argument of like nature, from Mat. 16.18. framed thus.
If the gates of Hel … never pervaile againſt the Church then ther hath alwayes been a true Church, & Antichriſt could never make the church falſe: & ſo you of the Seperation have ſinned moſt shamefully in calling the Church of Antichriſt falſe: Verum primum. Ergo ſecundum.
If my argument be not good againſt you of the Seperation for erecting a new Church, no more is yours good againſt vsus for erecting new baptiſme: This is to answer as they ſay regerendo: But I answer more properly ſolvendo thus: That the covenant is ſaid to be everlaſting not in reſpect of the viſible real exiſtence in the world in an eſtablished Church, but in reſpect of the ſtability & firmenes of it in regard of Sathans malice which should not ſo abolish it, that it should never bee recovered againe: For otherwiſe the Church went into the wildernes: Revel. 12.14. & al natiōs were made drunck with the cup of the fornication of the whore of Babylon, Revel. 18.…. & ther was no true Church in the depth of Antichriſtianiſme, & ſo no true baptiſme, for can any thing be true in a falſe Church, but the Scriptures & the truthes conteyned therein? I deny therfor, that the covenant, Church or baptiſme was viſible alwayes: For it was inviſible when the Chu…ch went into the wildernes: & therfor as you when ther was not a true Church in the world, took vppon you to ſet vp a true Church (as you ſay, but wee ſay a falſe Church) renouncing the Church of Antichr, & yet wil not bee ſaid to bring in a new covenant & a new Goſpel (for you in your falſe conceitednes wil reject them for heretiques, if ther bee any that dare ſay ſo of you forſooth): So the anabaptiſts (as you cal them) doe not ſet vp a new covenant & Goſpel, though they ſet vp a new or rather the old Apoſtolique baptiſme which Antichriſt had overthrowne: & whereas you ſay they have no warrant to baptiſme themſelves, I ſay, as much as you have to ſet vp a true Church, yea fully as much: For if a true Church may bee erected which is the moſt noble ordinance of the New Teſtament, then much more baptiſme: & if a true Church can not bee erected without baptiſme, for baptiſme is the viſible forme of the Church, as Diſciples are the matter: Mat. 28.19. Iohn. 4.1. Then ſeing you confeſſe that a true Church may bee erected, you cannot deny (though you doe deny it in oppoſing the truth) that baptiſme may alſo bee recovered: & ſeing when all Chriſts viſible ordinances are loſt, eyther men muſt recover them againe, or muſt let them alone: if they let them alone til extraordinary men come with miracles & tongs, as the Apoſtles did, then men are ſame liſts (for that is their opinion) or if they muſt recover them, men muſt beginne ſo to doe, & then two men joyning together may make a Church (as you ſay): Why may they not baptize ſeing they cannot conjoyne into Chriſt but by baptiſme, Mat. 28.19. compared with Mat. 18.10. Gallat. ….27. but it is evident that all Chriſts Commaundements muſt bee obeyed, Ergo, this commaundement of having & vſing the communion of the Church, Miniſtery, VVorship & Gouernment, thoſe Holy meanes of Salvation which the Lord of his mercy hath given vsus with his covenant, & commaunded vsus to vſe: & therefore if all the commaundements of God muſt bee obeyed, then this of baptiſme, & this warrant is ſufficient for aſſuming baptiſme: Now for baptiſing a mans ſelf ther is as good warrant, as for a man Churching himſelf: For two men ſingly are no Church, joyntly they are a Church, & they both of them put a Church vppon themſelves, ſo may two men put baptiſme vppon themſelves: For as both thoſe perſons vnchurched, yet have powre to aſſume the Church each of them for himſelf with others in communion: So each of them vnbaptized hath powre to aſſume baptiſme for himſelf with others in communion: And as Abraham & Iohn Baptiſt, & all the Proſelites af…r Abrahams example, Exod. 12.48, did adminiſter the Sacrament vppon themſelves: So may any man raiſed vp after the Apoſtacy of Antichriſt, in the recovering of the Church by baptiſme, adminiſter it vppon himſelf in communion with others: So wee ſee the Lords Supper is adminiſtred to a mans ſelf in communion with others, ſo is Prayer, Propheſy, Prayſing of God vttered for a mans ſelf aswel as for others. And as in the Old Teſtament: every man that was vncleane washed himſelf: every Preiſt going to Sacrifice washed himſelfe in the Laver at the dore of the Tabernacle of the congregation: which was a type of baptiſme, the dore of the Church, Tit. 2.5. Every Mr. of a Family adminiſtred the Paſſeover to himſelf & all of his Family: The Preiſt dayly Sacrificed for himſelf and others: a man cannot baptiſe others into the Church, himſelf being out of the Church: Therefore it is Lawfull for a man to baptize himſelf together with others in communion, & this warrant is a plerophory for the practiſe of that which is done by vsus: Thus are your 6. weake reaſons answered.