The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 2 · Argument 3
III. Argument.
IF the word of God paſſing through the falſe Miniſtery of Anchriſt was of force to convert Gods elect in Babilon: Then is baptiſme paſſing likewiſe through theire falſe miniſtery, of force to ſeale vp Gods covenant vntounto them; and ſo conſequently not to be iterated.
But the firſt is true. Apoc. 18. 4. for in babylon were Gods people converted; other ordinary Miniſtery was there none, but that falſe Miniſtery of the Papiſts; and therefore it is apparant that God made thereby his word effectuall to al them that beleeved Ergo &c. If it be obiected, that if God ſhould convert his people by an Antichriſtiā Miniſtery, it were to give Approbatiō to a falſe Miniſtery, and to teach that men might lawfully vſe it, which is abſurd. I anſwere, 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 thereby the good of his owne people; then it was his approving of the evil ſervice of Ioſephs brethren ſelling him into Egypt; becauſe he vſed their Miniſtery for the ſaving of Iacob and his houſhold; for God can worke good by an evil inſtrument.
If it be ſtil 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 avaylable to ſave al that beleeve: and ſo is the Sacrament to al Gods people avaylable to ſeale vp ſalvation vntounto them.
Mr. Smyth.
I anſwer. First the word converteth none viſibly vntounto me particulerly knowen: ſo Anſ.can Baptiſme ſeale vp none viſibly vntounto me &c.
Rich. Clyfton
Although Gods people continuing in Babylon cannot ſo welbe diſcerned;Rep. yet by their coming thenſce, they manifeſt to me particulerly, that there they were converted by the word, and ſo appeare viſibly vntounto me to belong vntounto God, and to be children of the covenant. As for the tyme before, we take no publike notice of theire ſecreete eſtate before God, nor can do †Deut. … 29.for the things revealed belong vntounto vsus. Further you ſay.
The marke of the Beast is vndoubtedly baptiſme, whereby they are initiated into Antichriſt, and receive his mark as Chriſts ſervants in baptiſme receive his ſeale upon them, &c.
Oh how fearful a thing is it to blaſpheme: baptiſme is the ordinance of God though it was polluted by Antichriſt: you may as wel ſay, the word of God is the marke of the beaſt: for Antichriſt did pollute it alſo as you formerly have confeſſed. Your mark of the beaſt reacheth verie farr even to the Apoſtles tymes, as the Auncients have witneſſed of the baptiſme of Infants. And if this was the mark of the beaſt, then was the mark before the beaſt, which is abſurd to affirme: for can the beaſt before it be in eſſe, make … both great and ſmale to receive a † mark in their right hand or in…. 13. …. their forehead. And that this baptiſing of infants was before the beaſt was, we have ſhewed out of the ſcriptures, and it may appear out of Origine, Tertullian and others, that ſpeak of infants baptiſme to be in practiſe in the church, before their tyme, as in the former part of this writing is obſerved. And it appeares both by the * Revelation. And that of theRev. 13. …. 10. 11. …. 17. Apoſtle in 2 Theſ. 2, 3. that the man of ſynne aroſe not to this height and power to make ſmall and great to receive his marke until there came a departing firſt. And ſeeing this marke of Antichriſt was ſuch as ſmale and great, rich and poor, free and bound did receive, it can not be, the baptiſing of infants. For then onelyonly the ſmale ſhould be ſayd to receive it. And therefore the marke muſt be ſuch a one, as ſhall agree to all perſons “great and ſmale, rich and poor, bound and free, and be received of themRev. 13. …6. Rev. 14. 9. in that condition and ſtate. And it muſt be ſuch a marke, as they that worſhip the beaſt and his image ſhal receive by a † willing and actual conſent, the which can not be applyed to infants: for neither can they worſhip the beaſt or give voluntarie conſent to receive his marke in their hands or foreheads.An.
2. Antichriſts baptiſme falſe (as I have ſayd) in the definition, is none of Gods ordinance, no not in the hands of the most faythful Minister, but Gods word is the Lords ordinance though in the mouth of the moſt vile Iudas or Antichristian, yea though it be in the mixture of a 1000. hereſies.
The ſame Lord that gave his word to his church, ordeyned alſo baptiſme…. to be therein. Indeed if baptiſme had been deviſed by Antichriſt or any man els, it were not to be reputed for true baptiſme at al, but that baptiſme which is foūd to be in the Antichriſtiā aſſemblies, is not Antichriſts, the contrarie is proved before.Anſw.
So that in this respect al… it followes not, that Gods word may convert in popery, therefore Antichriſts baptiſme may ſeal, &c.
It wil follow, that as the word in Poperie, ſo baptiſme in that Apoſtaſie retayned ſince the primitive cōſtitutiō of the church of Rome in the Apoſtles dayes, & as the word in poperie may cōvert, ſo baptiſme may ſeal thē that are Chriſts, being converted, for God can as wel bleſſe the one as the other. Gods word doth convert in Babilō, yet is not the promiſe any more annexed to that outward miniſterie of Antichriſt, then that bleſſing, *Gen. 1.bring forth fruit and multiplie, is by Gods ordinance tyed to unlawful conjunctiōs, but it pleaſeth the L. by the miniſterie of his word & ordināce to effect his own work in al ſuch as ſhal be ſaved, though through the hāds of apoſtates.
3. You ſay, If Antichriſt had retayned the Lords true baptiſme, &c. viz. Anſw.that he had baptiſed perſons confeſſing their ſinnes and fayth in the Trinitie, it ſhould not have been repeated: But ſeeing he intendeth in baptiſme to ſett an indelible caracter upon them, which is the marke of the beast to conferre grace ex opere operato to the infants which he waſheth &c. hence I conclude, that hee hath ſett upp his owne idoll of abhomination, and caſt the LORDS holy ordinance away, &c. Ergo, his baptiſme is anullitie or rather a ſeal of perdition▪ &c.
Your ſelf by your hereſie ſetts up an idol of abhomination, and caſts awayRep. the Lords holy ordinance of ſealing his covenant to his people & their ſeed. And here againe you deſtroy one of your reaſons which you brought againſt the baptiſing of infants, which was, *Caracte… pag. 52.becauſe they were members of a falſe church. for you confeſſe, that if Antichrist had baptiſed perſons confeſſing their ſinnes &c. it ſhould not have been repeated. So that to be members of a falſe church ſhal not hinder the efficacy of baptiſme. Againe if Antichriſt intendeth in baptiſme to ſet an indelible caracter to conferre grace, ex opere operato, to infants, and therefore ſetteth upp his owne idoll (as you ſay) what ſay you to his baptiſing of the Indians which are of yeares? For he intendeth the ſame thing. And yet his ſo baptiſing of the elder ſort, &c. you wil not have repeated. So by your own opinion to ſet an indelible caracter to conferre grace, ex oper… operato, is no good reaſon to prove the …erating of childrens baptiſme, for then ſhould it do ſo in the elder people confeſſing their ſinnes &c.
As for the promiſe made by others for the partie baptiſed, I place (as a deviſe of man) amongſt the accidental corruptions of this ſacrament.
Cōcerning perſons cōfeſſing their ſins & fayth, whō you make the onelyonly ſubject of baptiſme, I hav āſwered before. And here tel you that the ſcripture mētioneth †1 Cor. …. Act. 16.perſōs that were baptiſed; yet ſayth not a word, that they cōfeſſed their faith & ſyns. And you cā never prove that al in the familie of Stephanas, Lidiah, &c. did confeſſe their ſinnes and fayth: but to al that you ſay here, anſwer is given before.