The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · John Smith 19 – John Smith 20
Iohn Smyth.
The next thing in your answer is a ſolution of the arguments brought by mee to prove the truth: viz.
That Antichriſtians converted are to bee admitted into the true Church by baptiſme.
This truth of the Lords I have proved vntounto you by three reaſons: The firſt …hereof may bee framed thus.
So are Churches to be reſtored or conſtituted after the defection of Antichr. as they were erected by the Apoſtles at the firſt.
But the Churches were at the firſt erected by baptiſme in their primitive inſtitution by Iohn, Chr. & the Apoſtles.
Ergo: ſo are they now to be reſtored: & therfor the members are to be receaved in by baptiſme as they were then.
As in the former point for baptiſing of infants you were compelled to runne to the old Teſtament, & from thence to fetch the cheef corner ſtone of your building viz. from circumciſion: So in this ſecond point you vtterly forſake the new Teſtam. of Chr. & the true conſtitution Apoſtolique of the Church of the new Teſtament, & ſet vsus againe to Schoole to Moſes, as if Chr. had not beē faithful enough to teach vsus his new Teſt▪ but we muſt go learne the new Teſt▪ of the old Teſtament: Chr. of Moſes: The Goſpel of the Law.
And firſt I would know why we may not aswel with the Papiſts & Prelates goe fetch one high Preiſt from Moſes, a ſacrificing Preiſthood from Moſes, ſucceſſion in the miniſtery from Moſes, & a ſucceſſion in the Church from Moſes, as a ſucceſſion in baptiſme from Moſes: & in effect you do fetch a ſucceſſion of the Church from Rome: For in fetching a ſucceſſion of baptiſme from Rome which is the forme of the Church: & 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: For if infants of the Church of Rom… have true title to baptiſme by reaſon of the Faith of ſome of their aunceſters o… forfathers that were Faithful, then are they the true viſible matter of the Church: & if by reaſon of that title to baptiſme, they receave true baptiſme in ſubſtance as you ſay in the Church of Rome then they have the true viſible forme of the Church, for they that have the true matter & forme of a true Church vppon them are the true Chu… & ſo are the infants of the Church of Rome a true viſible Church in the conſtitution & eſſential cauſes therof: & ſo as in the old Teſtament the Church came by ſucceſſion of genealogie in reſpect wherof they made ſo much account of genealogies carnal, Philip. 3.3-5. 1. Timoth. 1.4. So in the New Teſtament the Church commeth by ſucceſſion of carnal Genealogie through the Church of Rome to our dayes: & then as the matter of the Church, viz infants deſcending of baptized parents is by Genealogie, & the forme of the church viz baptiſme vppon theſe infants is by deſcent: & therfor the Church is by ſucceſſion: I demaund why may not the miniſtery be by deſcent & ſucceſſion aswel as the Church? & then why is not the Church of Rome or England a true Church, the miniſtery of the Church of Rome or England a true Miniſtery▪ & ſo why may not you returne back againe into England, & take vp your former miniſtery, & renounce your Schiſme which you have made? & ſo I heare that ſome are mynded to doe: & truly for my part I hold it as lawful to retaine the Church & Miniſtery of England, as to retaine the baptiſme: & when I shal yeeld to the truth of the baptiſme of Englād I wil yeeld to the truth of the Church & miniſtery of England: & I wil confeſſe I have been a Schiſmatique, & returne & acknowledg my error: but bicauſe I know the miniſtery & Church of England is falſe, therfor it muſt needes be that the baptiſme which is the forme of the Church is falſe eſſentially: & therefore having Seperated juſtly from the Church & Miniſtery of England for the falſehood of them, I muſt needes alſo Seperate from the baptiſme which is falſe, for the Church is falſe bicauſe baptiſme the forme of the Church is falſe: & if baptiſme the forme of the Church of England be true, the Church of England is true alſo: You are to know therefore (& ſo I wish you & all the Seperation to mynd it well, & the Lord give you eyes to ſee, & harts to vnderſtand) that all the old Teſtament was carnal taken from the Elementes of the VVorld, thereby to type out & to teach them heavenly things: & therefore their Church was carnal to type to vsus in the New Teſtament a Spiritual Church: The matter of their Church was a carnall Iſraelite: the matter of the Church of the New Teſtament is a true Iſraelite in whom ther is no guile: The forme of their Church was carnall circumciſion a carnal ſeale. Geneſ. 17.10-14. The forme of the Church of the New Teſtament is the circumciſion of the hart, a new Creature, the Holy Spirit of promiſe whereby wee are ſealed, which is manifeſted by confeſſion & baptiſme in water: Act. 10.47. Epheſ. 1.13. Gallat. 3.27. & 6.15. Iohn 3.5. Matth. 3.6. Roman. 10.9. Act. 8.36.37. Their carnall Church in the matter & forme came by carnall Genealogie, & ſo they all of them were gendred vntounto bondage vnderunder the rudimentes off the VVorld vnderunder the carnal Teſtament or covenant: Gallat. 4.24.25. our Spirituall Church in the matter & forme thereof is by Spirituall Genealogie, that is the Genealogie of the Fayth of Abraham the Father of vsus all vnderunder the Spirituall New Teſtament, Gallat. 3.7.9.14. Roman. 4.10.11. Their parents in the carnall Church was carnall Abraham & carnall Hagar, & all their carnall parents who according to the Flesh with carnall ſeed begate carnall Iſmaell the type of the carnal Iſraelites: our parents in our Spiritual Church is Abrah. Spiritual, (& al our Spiritual parents) who by the word of God & by faith begat Spiritual Iſaac the type of the children of promiſe after whoſe manner we are, Gal. 4.22-28. Rom. 4 19-21. Heb. 11.11.12. 1. Pet. 1.23. Their miniſtery was a carnal miniſtery by carnal genealogie of the line of Aaron Sacrificing Preiſts: our miniſtery is by Spiritual genealogie of the election of the true Church that is Spiritual.
Thus if you would compare the Type & the Truth together, you should eaſily diſcerne the ſandy Fondation of your falſe Church ruinated & your falſe baptiſme quite abandoned: who continue a Church by ſucceſſion of a carnall line, & a baptiſme by ſucceſſion vppon the carnall Line through Popery: VVhereas the true Church is onelyonly by the Spirituall Line of Fayth, & true baptiſme by the Spirituall ſucceſſion vppon that Spirituall Line of Faythfull men confeſſing their Fayth & their ſinnes, which was typed by that carnal Line of the Old Teſtament: you therefore that introduce a carnal Line into the Church to bee baptized, viz: all your Children according to the Flesh & that by ſucceſſion fetch baptiſme vppon that carnal Line through the Church of Rome into your Church (following the preſident of the Old Teſtament in that carnal circumciſion by ſucceſſion of Genealogie) doe therein vnawares make Rome a true Church, your ſelves Schiſmatiques, & ſet vp Iudaiſme in the New Teſtament, & ſo are fallen from Chriſt, & are become a new ſecond image of the Beaſt never heard of before in the VVorld: For ſuch are you of the Seperation.
This being premiſed as a ground which I earneſtly in treat you (even in my beſt love vntounto you) & al the Seperation, eſpecialy the leaders of them, well to weigh & ponder, & not to be ashamed to learne of their inferiors & juniors: I come to āswer the exceptions which you take at my firſt Argument.
The ſumme of your exception is this: That ſeing wee are the poſterity of baptized perſons, & the Iewes & Gentiles in the Apoſtles tymes were not ſo: Therefore wee need not aſſume baptiſme in our entrance into the Church, which wee had in our Apoſtacy, but wee may enter into the Church without rebaptizing as the Apoſtate Iſraelites did without recircumciſing: & ſo we muſt not in the new Teſt. be framed according to the paterne taught in the new Teſt. in entering in by baptiſme, but according to the paterne of the old Teſtam. & the Apoſtate Iſraelites therein, &c.
I answer divers things: Firſt, I ſay that the New Teſtament is as ſufficient for the direction of al the affaires & occaſions that befall in the tyme of the New Teſtament, as the Old Teſtament was for the occurrences that befell vnderunder the Old Teſtament: Seing Chriſt is as Faythful as Moſes: & the New Teſtament as perfect as the Old. Gal. 3.15. & therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apoſtolique conſtitution of Churches, & our conſtituting of them in reſpect of the perſons to be admitted into the Church, & in reſpect of baptiting & not baptiſing or rebaptiſing of them he could & would have done it: but ſeing it is not done in the New Teſtament, but left in ſilence: & ſeing the New Teſtament of Chr. is perfect & ſealed with his blood, you that put this difference add to the new Teſtament, & bring in a new Chriſt, a new covenant, a new Goſpel, a new Church, & new baptiſme: & wo be to them that ad to the word, Rev. 22.18. & as they were accurſed that added to the old Teſt. Deut. 4.2. & 12.32. So much more shal they be ſubject to the cauſe that add to the new Teſt. of Chr. Heb. 12.25. in this reſpect ther for your answer is inſufficient.
Secondly, I affirme that (as the Holy Ghoſt ſaith) the Antichriſtians are in condition equall to Pagans, & therefore as I have ſaid they are not called Iſraelites or Samaritanes, but Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentills: but the Holy Ghoſt knoweth what & how to ſpeak: And therefore as the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentils washings were nothing, no more is the baptiſme of Antichriſtians any thing: For the Holy Ghoſt foreſeeing that the Antichriſtians would abolish the true baptiſme of Chriſt by baptiſing infants, & ſo by admitting into the Church the carnal ſeed of the Flesh, would diſanul that Holy ordinance of baptiſme, & ſo abolish the true conſtitution of the Church, in heavenly wiſdom for our inſtruction calleth perſons Apoſtating from the true conſtitution of the Church Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentils, therby teaching vsus that he eſteemeth no otherwiſe of their Church or baptiſme, then of the Synagogues of Babylon; then of the washings of Egypt, then of the worship of Sodom & the Pagans: & theſe compariſons will fit you well againſt the aſſemblies & Temples of Antichriſt, and I know no reaſon that they thould not fitt vsus aswell againſt your Babylonish, Egyptians, Sodomitish, and Paganish washings of infants which which though it bee done into the name of Chr. yet is no more avayleable in the Holy Ghoſts teſtimony then washing of Pagans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomies Children.
Thirdly, wheras you ſay that repayring the Church now after the Apoſtacy of Antichr. is a fitter ſpeech then conſtituting: herein do you both taxe your ſelves off the vſe of that word conſtitution: & plainly ſignifie that you incline to maintain the Churches of England & Rome to be true Churches, wherin whither you doe not forſake your firſt faith, & turne with the dog to the vomit look you vntounto it, & let al indifferent men judg: but your writings are againſt you ſufficient witneſſes in this caſe.
Fourthly, I ſay that the Iewes that were converted to the Faith & new Teſtament of Chr. by Chr. Iohn, & the Apoſtles in your account were in a far better eſtate thē Antichr. For they (as you ſay) were of the ſame body with the Church of the New Teſtament, & their circumciſion was a ſeale of the new Teſtament (as you ſay) & they were in Chr. Ieſus (as you ſay) & were washed I doubt not many of them into the Meſſias whoſe blood they typically ſaw in their manifold baptiſmes & purifications with water: & al of thē had been partakers of the word & Sacraments in the Chur. of the Iewes, & why might not they by Chriſt, Iohn, or the Apo. be admitted into the Church without baptiſme: if therfor Chr. Iohn. & the Apo. would needes baptize them, & ſo by baptiſme conſtitute them into the new Teſtament that had all theſe perogatives in your judgment, much more wil they have vsus to conſtitute Antichr. converted into the true Church by baptiſme: neither can you ſay without great indignity to the L. ordinances in the old Teſt. that they were inferior to the baptiſme of Antichriſt.
Againe you wil needes have this to be a great priviledg to the antichr. to be the carnal ſeed of them that hath ſomtyme been members of the Church of Chr. in the new Teſtament, & therfor you ſay that in ther parents or aunceſtors they had title to baptiſme: I deny that ever the English nation of any one of our predeceſſors were of the Faith of Chr. shew it if you can: but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mother came & put vppon vsus her falſe baptiſme: & therfor although the Roma. might plead this, yet England cannot plead it: & ſo your diſſimilitude cannot hold in that thing: & our caſe is ſimply Paganish.
Further, you ſay that the repentance of Apoſtate Churches is ſufficient for their admittance into the true Church without rebaptization, as repentance was for Iſrael without recircumciſion: I deny it, for the Churches of Antichr. are falſe, & the Church of the Iſraelites was not falſe: The Churches of Antichr. were falſe bicauſe they conſiſted of the carnal ſeed baptized which was not that one ſeed vntounto which the promiſe was made, that is the Faithful: The Church of the Iſraelites was true bicauſe it did conſiſt of the carnal ſeed carnally circumciſed, which was the true conſtitution of the Church of the old Teſtament: For otherwiſe if Iſrael had been falſe bicauſe of their Apoſtacy & Idolatry then Iudah was as falſe who had in wickednes juſtified Samaria & Sodom, Ezech. 16.51. but indeed they were neither of them falſe ſo long as they circumciſed the males of 8. dayes old, but the Churches of Antichr. growing falſe by baptiſing the carnal ſeed (which was not the true ſeed of Abrahams faith) therefore are to bee baptized when they come to the truth, & cannot have Iſraels Apoſtacy for the preſident: wherefore an Edomite or Iſraelite comming to bee a proſelite of the Iewes Church that had omitted circumciſion is a true Preſident of the Antichriſtian Apoſtacy: For as they omitting the circumciſion of the males though of the Poſterity of Abraham, yet being Proſelites were entered into the Iewes Church by circumciſion: So is it in the Apoſtacy of Antichriſt, with the Proſelytes of Antichriſtianiſme: for ſo I take it the Proſelytes were types of Antichriſtians, converted to the Faith, & admitted into the true Church: & the Iſraelites were not ſo.
Moreover whereas you ſay that if the Apoſtles had met with ſuch as we are they would have receaved vsus into the Church vppon repentance without baptiſme: I answer, if ſuch an example had been left vsus wee would then have reſted ſatiſfied, but ſeing the Apo. have left no ſuch example nor precept therfor you are yet in your Apoſtacy, & having not repented of nor forſaken your Egyptian baptiſme are ſtil vnſeperated, do ſtil retaine the mark of the beaſt, & are ſubject to the woe that the aungel threatneth to perſons ſo marked.
Mr. Rich. Clifton.
Now let vsus come to the ſecond reaſon which is this.
2. Bicauſe true baptiſme is but one, but the baptiſme of Antichriſt is not true baptiſme, & ſo not that one baptiſme of Chr. but al the members of Chr. muſt have true Baptiſme.
Answere.
2. Ther is but one Faith & one baptiſme, Eph. 4 4. & therefore is it ſufficient to bee once baptized, as it was to bee once circumciſed: Secondly, That the baptiſme of Antichriſt is not true baptiſme I graunt, & doe alſo affirme that al members of Chriſt muſt have true baptiſme, & what then muſt it follow that now ſuch as are baptized muſt bee rebaptized, els cannot bee members of a viſible Church: I deny it & doe further answere, 1. That the baptiſme which wee receaved in the Apoſtate Church is no more Antichriſts then the word that wee receaved therein: For Antichriſt did never ordaine a new kynd of baptiſme, but did onelyonly pollute (with his inventions) the Holy ordinance of Chr: & therefore if this baptiſme that wee have receaved be called the baptiſme of Antichr. that is to affirme an vntruth, ſeing the inſtitution thereof was by Ieſus Chr. who commaunded his Apo. to baptize al nations with water in the name of the Father & of the Sonne, & of the Holy Ghoſt. & the ſame baptiſme for ſubſtance is ſtil retayned in the Apoſtate churches & none other. Secondly, this baptiſme may alſo in ſome reſpect bee called true baptiſme, as before I have noted in my fift reaſon againſt rebaptization: For 1. it hath Chr. for the Author, 2. it hath the true matter outward ſigne or element which is water, 3. the true forme of adminiſtring the ſame, which is, baptiſing into the name of the Father, of the Sonne, & of the Holy Ghoſt, al which is practiſed in the Popish Church, neither is any baptized into the name or faith of Antich. but vntounto the faith & poſſeſſion of Chriſt. & therfor our baptiſme is the baptiſme of Chr. & to vsus that repent true baptiſme, & ſo conſequently not to be reiterated.
Iohn Smyth.
In the next place you make answer to my ſecond arg. which may be framed thus
Al the members of Chr. muſt have that one true baptiſme of Chr. taught in the new Teſtament.
The baptiſme of antich. is not that one true baptiſme, taught by Chr. in the new Teſtament.
Ergo: The members of Chriſt muſt not have the baptiſme of Antichriſt, but muſt take the true baptiſme of Chriſt, when they come into the true Church.
The ſumme of your answer is: That the baptiſme we receaved in the falſe Chur. is not Antichr. but Chriſts: I make answer, that ſeing infants are baptized which is the falſe matter of baptiſme, & ſeing in them ther is not the queſtion of a good conſcience vntounto God, 1. Pet. 3.21. Nor the haſt ſprinckled from an evil conſcience, Heb. 10 22. which is the forme: Seing they cannot expreſſe credis? Credo: Abrenuntias? Abrenuncio: which is the forme of baptiſme even the mutual contract betwixt God & the party baptized expreſſed viſibly in confeſſion: therfor the baptiſme is not Chr. but Antichriſts, not from heaven but of man: & al that you object in this particular is already ſufficiently taken away in answer to your 4. reaſon: whither I tranſlated that which is heer answered by you vppon occaſion ther intertayned.