The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 2 · Argument 5
V. Argument.
IF Antichriſt be not the author of Baptiſme, but of ſome humane deviſes annexed unto it in the adminſtratiō therof: then are we not to pluck vp the wheat with the tares, Mat. 13. 29. & to caſt away that which is Chriſts with Antichriſts; but to ſeparate from that which is mans invention, and ſtill to retayne that which is of God. But to baptiſe with water into the name of the father and of the ſonne and of the holy Ghoſt, Mat. 28. 19 is from heaven, Mat. 21. 25. and not from Antichriſt. Ergo, we ought not to caſt it away, but thoſe traditions wherewith Antichriſt hath polluted it, as examples, K. Ioſias, and before him K. Ezechias, when both the land and Temple were polluted, …ng. 21, 7. & 23. 4. did not pul downe the Temple, but appointed the Preiſts to clenſe it, who did ſo, and brought out all the uncleannes that they had found in the houſe of God, 2 Chrō. 29. 16. - 18. and 34. 8. For in reformation of things, difference muſt be put betweene thoſe things whereof God is the authour, and ſuch as are deviſed by man: the former is to be purged from all profanation, & the things ſtil to be reteyned: the other quite to be aboliſhed. This rule in all reformation of religion ought to be followed.
Mr Smyth.
I anſwere, that as when the Babylonians had vtterly destroyed the Temple, the Iewes Anſ.built it agayne: ſo when Antichrist hath vtterly deſtroyed the true Church, then muſt we build it vp agayne. And when he hath deſtroyed true baptiſme, then must we rear it up againe, therefore ſeeing Antichrist hath aboliſhed the true baptiſme, and hath reared vp a baptiſme of his owne, it muſt therefore be aboliſhed, &c.
R. Clyfton.
Firſt I anſwere, that baptiſme in apoſtate Churches, though it be polluted, yet can not be ſayd to be vtterly deſtroyed, And therefore your anſwer is not ſufficient to prove the rebaptiſing of them that were baptiſed in the Antichriſtian aſſemblies. 2. In reiecting of that baptiſme altogether, and baptiſing a new, you doe renounce that which is true therin, by your owne confeſſion. viz. To waſh with water, into the name of the father, and of the ſonne, and of the holy Ghost, in that in your new baptiſing of your ſelves you repeate it agayne, which you ought not, if it be of God; and ſo indeed you reteyne not any truth in it at all.
3. As for your compariſon of a falſe Church or Miniſtery with baptiſme, it is not equal: for if you vnderſtand by falſe Church and Miniſtry, that which is deviſed by man onelyonly: then the conſtitutions thereof are not of Gods ordinance; as in Iereboams Preiſts, and as in Provincial or Dioceſan Churches, wherein not one beame, rafter or ſtone, is appointed by the lord, and therefore can not be reteyned with the purging away of the corruptions therof. But in baptiſme, (I meane that which is adminiſtred in Popery) there remaynes, the waſhing with water into the name of the Trinitie, which you with the tares pluck vp and caſt in to the fyre.
4. Wheras you ſay. That in the falſe baptiſme, Church, and Miniſtery, the corruptions ar eſsential and the truth onelyonly accidental, and thoſe accidental truthes muſt … reſerved and iterated. I demaunde of you what be theſe accidental truthes in a falſe Baptiſme, Church and Miniſtery, that are to be iterated? and how you prove ſuch iteration of accidents in baptiſme: if you ſay, That to baptiſe with water into the name of the father &c. be an accident to baptiſme, then is it not of the eſſence therof, but Chriſt maketh this applied to a right ſubject, the †Mat. 2…. 19.form of baptiſm: And your ſelf a little before have ſo *Charac… pag. …4.written, …ow if it be of the forme (which gives the being of the thing) how is it an accidet? for you ſay, neceſſarily for having true baptiſm, we muſt repeat waſhing into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost, which are but accidents. And further you ſay, a Turke ſo waſhed is not baptiſed. How prove you this repeating of waſhing into the name of the Trinitie &c.? and how doth the baptiſing of a Turke prove this forme of waſhing to be an accident to the ceremony of baptiſme? ſeing without this waſhing with water into the name of the Father &c. it cannot be baptiſme.
And though this waſhing or ceremony in reſpect of the party baptiſed, may be called an accident (as al ſuch formes of things are to the matter wherevpon they are induced) yet to baptiſme it ſelfe, I meane, to the external ceremony it is no accident or adiunct, but is of the very eſſence and being thereof, and without which it cannot be baptiſme. And therefore how you can call the waſhing with water into the name of the Trinitie an accident, I do not conceive, otherwiſe then as before, I have obſerved in reſpect of the party baptiſed, els might the ceremony of baptiſme be for ſubſtance, without this waſhing with water into the name of the Trinitie. But whether it be of the eſſence, of baptiſme or an accident, look with what warrant you do repeate it.
For ſuppoſe I ſhould graunt as much as you deſire, that this forme of waſhing into the name of the Trinitie were an accident to baptiſme, yet the Lord having cōmaunded that accident to be but once vſed without repeating, how can you iuſtifie the iterating of ſuch accidentall truthes (as you call them) for if it were of God in that baptiſme adminiſtred in Popery (as you confeſſe) then can you not repeat it. Therefore your iterating of it, argues you do not acknowledge it at all to be of the Lord: And ſo you retayne not the accidental truthes in baptiſme as you pretend to do.