A Christian Plea, Treatise 1 · Chapter 3 · Objection 3 – Objection 4
OBJECTION III.
But*Animad. p. 72, &c. Idols are of two ſorts: ſome meerely deviſed by men, as Ieroboams†1 King. 12, 28. calues: ſome perverted by men from holy ſignes to Idols, as‡2 King. 18, 4. the brazen ſerpent. Both theſe kinds are in popiſh baptiſme. For their croſſes, exorciſmes, greaſings, &c. are Idols of the firſt ſort, worſe then Jeroboams bullocks: their waſhing with water in nomine patris &c. is of the ſecond ſort, that is, Gods ordinance turned into an Idoll, as was the braſen Serpent. Thus is there a mixture in Antichriſts Chriſtening, of both ſorts of abominations. Therefore hauehave we renounced that Romiſh baptiſme, as an impure Idol in their abuſe, ſtanding up in the place of Chriſt and his precious blood, which it is not: pretending to giuegive grace, & waſh away ſinnes, which it doth not: but it is a lye“Eſa. 44 20. in the right hand of all that ſo receiuett: and the ſaying of the Apoſtle is verified in it, an Idol is nothing in the world. 1 Cor. 8, 4. Yet the Apoſtle is not contrary to the Prophet who ſayth, their Idols are ſilver and gold, the work of mens hands, Pſal. 115, 4. An Idoll then for the matter and workmanſhip is ſomething, but for the relation unto God, or divine grace, it is nothing: and thus the Apoſtle meaneth, as his next words ſhew,*1 Cor. 8, 4. there is no other God but one. So popiſh baptiſme, as touching the material thing is ſomewhat, the ſalt, the water, the oyle, are Gods creatures: the outward action is the work of the hands of an Idolatrous prieſt: and this work remayneth, as did the work of the Idolaters circumciſing in Iſraell: but as touching the relation (which is the mayne thing in a Sacrament) that it ſhould ſeale up unto them the forgiuenes of ſinnes, & (as they blasphemouſly ſay) quite take away ſinnes, and conferre grace; ſo it is a vayn Idol & nothing: for neyther doe the true Sacraments in Christs church worke any ſuch effect to Gods owne people: and as for that Antichriſtian Synagogue, it is not appointed to ſalvation, but to condemnation by the juſt ſentence of God. Rev. 17, 11. and 18, 8, 20, 21. 2 Theſ. 2, 11, 12. Therefore it will not help to ſay, that baptiſme in it ſelf conſidered, is Christs ordinance: for†Num. 21, 8.9. the brazen Serpent was in it ſelf Gods ordinance at firſt, and a ſacramental ſigne of their redemption by‡Joh 3, 14 …5. Christ: yet they that burnt incenſe to it, made it an Idol, and therefore as“2 King. 18, 4. Nehushtan, (a peece of braſſe) it was destroyed.
ANSWER.
What notable shifts, errors, contradictions, abuſe of Scriptures, vayne diſtinctions, and odious aſſertions are here couched together? And hovv many in a fevv lynes? Which is the more to be obſerved, becauſe that novv after the trueth herein manifeſted, theſe things are by vvay of oppoſition adviſedly ſet downe and published, for the more colouring and defence of the former aſſertions. So as though for the ſubſtance thereof, they agree vvith the former, yet conſidering the time of the writing and maner of dealing hereabout, they are the more to be regarded & inſiſted upon. But to ſpeak at large of every particular, vvould be long: they are ſo very many. I wil therefore giuegive short inſtances of each ſort: by vvhichwhich the Reader may better diſcerne, vvhat great abuſe and iniquitie there is in ſuch maner of pleas and treatiſes, how ever covered vvith fair shewes and pretences: which are to common with theſe and ſuch like Oppoſites.
SHIFTS.
Shifts.Firſt then, for Shifts, obſerue theſe: 1. A needles diſtinction of Idols, nothing helping for the queſtion in hand.
2. Whereas the point here in hand, is, whether the baptiſme it ſelf, vvhichwhich is had in the church of Rome, be an Idoll, and not true baptiſme: they would now ſomewhat turne it of, by ſaying, There are two ſorts of Idols, both kinds whereof are in the Popish baptiſme. Whereby if they meane, that the baptiſme there had, is an Idoll of both ſorts, they doe the more increaſe their error: of vvhichwhich more hereafter: If they meane not ſo (to wit, that it is not indeed an Idol, but onelyonly that they hauehave divers ſorts of idolatrie in their additions, opinions, & miniſtratiō thereof) they doe but uſe shifts.
3. Of which ſort is, that they ſpeak of croſſes, exorciſmes, greaſings, and ſuch additions annexed in their miniſtration of baptiſme; whereas we ſpeak of the Baptiſme it ſelf.
4. Alſo that they ſpeak of the abuſe, when as our queſtion is of the thing it ſelf, notvvithſtanding their ſinfull abuſes thereabout.
5. The pretending likevviſe of the opinions and errors of the Church and Miniſters, vvhen as our queſtion is of the Lords ordinance ſtill continued in the church, notwithſtanding thoſe erroneous opinions and corruptions.
6. And vvhen they ſay, the Romiſh baptiſme in their abuſe is a lye in the right hand of all that ſo receiue it: vvhy is this (ſo) inſerted, but for a shift, ſeeing they know that people there receiue it uſually, vvhen they are infants? And is it a lye then in their right hand? Then muſt it alſo be ſo in their ovvne right hand, that vvere baptized there. Not to ſpeak of the Martyrs and other ſervants of God, ſo baptized in that church, for many generations. So let them anſwer vvhat they will, here is eyther notorious error and Anabaptiſtrie (before confuted) or notable shifting, novv treated off.
7. Like are the vaine pretences here made about an idol being nothing in the world: 1 Cor. 8, 4. and yet being ſomething in the matter and workmanshippe thereof. Pſal. 115, 4. Like as Bellarmine (though in another caſe, yet with as yll ſucceſſe) alledgeth thoſe words of the Apoſtle ſaying, Where bleſſed Paul ſayth, we knowe that an Idoll is nothing in the vvorld, there an Idoll is ſaid to be nothing, becauſe that although it be ſomething according to the matter, yet it is nothing formally, &c. Bellarm. lib. 2. de eccleſ. triumph. cap 5. tom. 1. controverſ. 7.
8. Alſo in applying the matter and workmanship of Idols made by the hands of mē, to the matter of baptiſme, & work of the prieſts hāds that doth baptiſe.
9. And ſpeaking of the relation that is the mayne thing in a Sacrament, they make no mention of a ſigne, but onelyonly of a ſeale; neyther therein keep they to the inſtitution of God, as they ought: but tell us vvithall of mens corrupt opinions and blaſphemous aſſertions thereabout,
10. Moreover, when they ſay, as touching the relation (which is the mayn thing in a ſacrament) that it ſhould ſeale up unto them the forgiuenes of ſinnes, & (as they blaſphemouſly ſay) quite take away ſinnes, and confer grace: ſo it is a vayne idoll and nothing: for neyther doe the true Sacraments in Chriſts Church work any ſuch effect to Gods own people: if they mean, that the true Sacraments in Chriſts church ſeale not up to Gods owne people the forgiuenes of ſinnes, it is an error: but if they meane that they doe not themſelues take away ſinnes, & confer grace (for this alſo they annex with the other) then they uſe shifts, & keep not to the point of the relation here ſpoken off, and as it is appointed to be by the Lord himſelf.
11. From Gods ſentence of condemnation touching Antichriſt and his adherents, they reaſon to Gods baptiſme, never cōdemned by the Lord, but ſtil continued (through his merciemercy) in the church & Temple of God, vvhere Antichriſt ſitteth.
12. Finally, from the brazen ſerpent, which vvas but a temporarie & extraordinary ſigne, the uſe whereof now alſo was ceaſed, when it was thus perverted, and which now might lawfully be taken avvay and deſtroyed for ever: they reaſon to baptiſme, which is an ordinary ſigne perpetually to be had in the church, whoſe uſe ſtill continueth (notvvithſtanding the errors and abuſes had thereabout) and may never be taken away, or deſtroyed to the ende of the world. And hitherto of theſe shifts had in this place about this point.
ERROVRS.
Errours.Secōdly, for errors and falſe doctrines, note theſe: 1. That the baptiſme had in the church of Rome, is an Idol, and a vaine Idol, and nothing, euentouching the relation, which is the mayn thing in a ſacrament, &c. Of which more hereafter.
2. And that whereas Idols are of two ſorts, both the kinds are in the popiſh baptiſme. Is then the baptiſme there had, both like to Ieroboams calues, that vvere mans deviſe; and to the braſen ſerpent, that from an holy ſigne was perverted to an Idol, and novv vvas but as Nehuſhtan a peece of braſſe, and ſo vvas deſtroyed? If this vvere ſo, should it not then preſently & wholly be taken avvay and deſtroyed? For ſo vvas to be done vvith Ieroboams calues, and ſo vvas done (and that rightly) vvith the brazen Serpent. Yea, and it vvas novv eſteemed but as a peece of braſſe, as himſelf here alſo noteth: and ſo vvas called by Hezekiah. 2 King. 18, 4. According whereunto then the baptiſme aforeſaid should be but eſteemed as the dayly vvashing of our ovvn faces or hands with water: as indeed ſome of them alſo ſtick not expreſſely to affirme. And vvhat is this but very Anabaptiſtrie,Pag. 27. &c. here convinced before. And vvhereas they apply the croſſes, and exorciſmes, & the like, to Ieroboams calues, I obſerue this alſo, yet but as a shift: both becauſe our queſtion is of the baptiſme it ſelf, and not of the additions made therevvithall, & becauſe that themſelues here afterward ſpeaking of the Romiſh baptiſme in their abuſe, affirme, that the ſaying of the Apoſtle is verified in it, an idoll is nothing in the world. 1 Cor. 8, 4. and compare it vvith the heathens Idols made of gold and ſilver by the work of mens hands. Pſal. 115, 4. vvhere ſpeaking of the matter of baptiſme, they mention the water, as wel as the ſalt, and oyle, there uſed among thē. Of which more hereafter.
3. Novv alſo note, that here they ſay, they hauehave therefore renounced that Romiſh baptiſme, as an impure idoll in their abuſe, &c. They ſay not, that they hauehave onelyonly renounced the abuſes, as idolatrous: & kept the baptiſme it ſelf, as being true baptiſme and Gods ordinance: but they ſay expreſſely, they hauehave renounced that Romiſh baptiſme, as an impure idoll in their abuſe, &c. Which if they hauehave indeed ſo done, as they ſpeak, and as was to be done with the Idols whereof they ſpeak. then here againe is notable error & Anabaptiſtrie. And now then vvhat outward baptiſme or ſacrament hauehave they remayning to themſelues? (for of it is all our queſtion.) If they ſay, they hauehave the baptiſme aforeſaid, hovv hauehave they then renounced it, as was to be done with the calues, brazen Serpent, and heathens idols: ſpecially when they ſay in particular of their waſhing with water, in nomine patris, &c. that it is as the brazen ſerpent, which being once Gods ordinance, was turned into an Idol, & therefore as a piece of braſſe vvas utterly deſtroyed; yea that it is as the vvork of mens hands, that made the heathens Idols: Pſal. 115, 4. hovv ever againe they croſſe themſelues, when they alſo ſay, that this vvork remayneth, as did the vvork of the Idolaters circumciſing in Iſrael. Of vvhichwhich more in their Contradictions.
4. Note alſo, that the braſen ſerpent, was not in deed an Idoll, but an holy ordinance of God, and a ſacramentall ſigne of redemption by Chriſt (as themſelues here afterward acknowledge) which in time came to be idolatrouſly abuſed. Now difference is to be put betvveen an Idoll, and that which is the Lords ordinance, but idolatrouſly perverted or abuſed: as I noted here before.
5. Moreover, the braſen ſerpent was but a temporarie ordinance of God, in a ſpecial caſe, which being idolatrouſly abuſed, might wholly be left & rejected after the ſpeciall uſe had thereof, vvhereunto it vvas appointed: whereas the Lords ordinance of baptiſme, is for ordinarie & perpetual uſe: and therefore not to be rejected for mens abuſes at any time to the end of the world. Matt. 28, 18, 19, 20. So as the compariſon alſo in this reſpect is unfit and erroneous.
6. That the Romiſh Baptiſme is an impure Idol in their abuſe, ſtanding up in the place of Chriſt & his precious blood, vvhichwhich it is not, pretending to giuegive grace & vvash avvay ſinnes, vvhichwhich it doeth not. But the baptiſme of the church of Rome is Gods ordinance, had and planted there by the Apoſtles, before eyther Antichriſt ſate there, or the abuſes & errors here ſpoken of, were knowē or had there at all. Rom. 1, 7. vvith 6, 3, 4. Neyther doth the baptiſme ſtand up in the place of Chriſt and his precious blood, nor pretend to giuegive grace & vvash avvay ſinnes. Theſe are the errors and abuſes of men about it, not the nature of the baptiſme it ſelf. Othervviſe alſo it should be thus to all that receiue it there, vvhether old or young: And then al that hauehave received it, ought to renounce it utterly, and to get another outvvard and true baptiſme. Or vvill theſe men ſay, that we can without ſinne reteyne any thing, and not utterly reject it (whatſoever it be) that ſtandeth up in the place of Chriſt and his precious blood, or that pretendeth to giuegive grace and wash away our ſinnes: vvhichwhich is to be kept intire to the Lord alone, & to the grace of God in Ieſus Chriſt. Moreover, the errors and abuſes of men, may hurt themſelues, but they cannot chaunge the nature of Gods ordinance in it …elf. Mans unbelief cannot make the faith of God of no effect. God is true, though every man be a lyer. Rom. 3, 3, 4. The Ievves in Chriſts time, and before,Rom. 9, 31, 32. and 10 3, 4. vvith Act. 15, 1. and Gal. 4, 21, &c. holding juſtification by circumciſion and the works of the …aw, ſet theſe up in the place of Chriſt and his precious blood, thinking that they had righteouſnes and ſalvation thereby. Should we therefore …ay, that circumciſion was then an impure Idol in their abuſe, ſtanding in the place …f Chriſt and his precious blood, pretending to giuegive grace, &c. Or should we not ra…her learne to put difference between Gods ordinance in it ſelf, and be…vveen mans abuſe thereof: ſtil acknowledging the ordinance of God to …e good and holy, although mens abuſe and aberrations thereabout be …nfull & corrupt: as I hauehave shevved before. Finally, if the Ievves circum…iſion heretofore became not an Idoll, by theſe errors & abuſes of men: neyther doth the Chriſtians baptiſme become ſuch thereby. Baptiſme is novv the ſigne and ſeale of Gods covenant, as circumciſion vvas of old: and is no more an Idoll, though ſo abuſed, then circumciſion vvas.
7. That the Romiſh baptiſme is a lye in the right hand of all that receiue it. For confirmation whereof, he alledgeth Eſa. 44, 20. Where the Prophet ſpeaketh of Idols, that*Gal. 4, 7. vvith Eſa. 44, 8, 9, 10. &c. by nature are no Gods, but a lye in the right hand of all that hauehave and reteyne them. Which if it were true of the Romish baptiſme, that in the nature thereof, it were no baptiſme, but a lye in the right hand of all that hauehave and reteyn it, then should it without queſtion be renounced as a very Idoll in deed. For ſuch is the lye in the right hand, ſpoken off by the Prophet, Eſa. 44, 20. And the Lord requireth every man thus to doe with Idols, Caſt ye avvay, ſayth he, every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not your ſelues vvith the Idols of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Ezech. 20, 7. Where though the Lord ſpeak in particular of the idols of Egypt, according to the caſe and eſtate of his people at that time: yet it is the rule and vvil of God for all Idols: as may appeare both by the reaſon there annexed, in thoſe vvords, I am the Lord your God, which excludeth the having or reteyning of any Idols at any time: & by other Scriptures, forbidding al idols at all times vvhereſoever. Ezech. 20, 7, 18. vvith 14, 3, 6. and Lev. 19, 4. Eſa. 30, 22. Hoſ. 13, 2. and 14, 8. 1 Joh. 5, 21. Rev. 22, 15. But here perhaps this man vvill ſay, his words are not ſimply of receiving it, but of ſo receiving it as here is ſayd. So in deed he ſpeaketh here: and vvell may it be, that thus he ſpeaketh, to hauehave a shift and ſtarting hole, after his manner: as I hauehave noted before. But hovv ever it be, let us yet examine it, & inquire a litle further into this matter. And firſt let him novv ſyncerely tell us, whether he hold that the Romish baptiſme is a lye in the right hand of al that receiue it in the preſent eſtate of the Church of Rome: Eſa. 44, 20as the Prophet here ſpeaketh of a lye. If he ſay, Yea: then both this Prophet in the ſame place, and all the Scripture every vvhere teacheth, that we may not reteyne it, but muſt utterly reject it: & that els wee feed but on ashes, and hauehave our hearts deceived, &c. Eſa. 44, 20. with 30, 22. Ezec. 14, 6. and 20, 18. Rev. 22, 15. If he ſay, No: then all may ſee, how he doeth but shift and cavill, and hath ſpent many good houres, and blotted a great deal of paper to no purpoſe, but to maintaine error, Anabaptiſtrie, & impietie: beſides that thus he giues us the cauſe againſt himſelf, and overthrovves al his former aſſertions & writing hereabout. Secondly, if ſome should be baptized in the Church of Rome, vvith their croſſes, exorciſmes, greaſings, &c. which he ſaith are vvorſe idols then Jeroboams bullocks: and yet should not ſet up baptiſme in the place of Chriſt and his precious blood, thinking it to giuegive grace and wash away ſinnes: let him now alſo concerning ſuch ſyncerely tel us, whether the baptiſme thus received in that church should be renounced and rejected, or not. If he ſay, it should: then by this vvill follovv that they hold the baptiſme of that church to be an Idol, not onelyonly in reſpect of this opinion, of ſtanding in Chriſts place, &c. which here he inſerteth, to beare out the matter with greater colour: but in reſpect of the other corruptions alſo, viz. their croſſes, exorciſmes, greaſings, &c. though this other opinion aforeſaid be not held therewithall. If he ſay, it ſhould not be renounced and rejected for theſe corruptions, but onelyonly for the opinion aforeſayd: why then doe they hold the baptiſme of the church of England to be an Idol, where they know this opinion is not held, to ſet it up in Chriſts place, thinking that it giveth grace &c? Why alſo makes he ſuch pretences about this matter, by the croſses, exorciſmes, greaſings, and other ſuch corruptions in the church of Rome, if he think that the baptiſme there had doth not for all theſe become an Idoll: and yet alſo ſaith, that they are vvorſe Idols then Ieroboams bullocks? Thirdly, hovv vvill he shew (if he vvere put to it) that baptiſme in the church of Rome is ſo received, as ſtanding in the place of Chriſt, &c. ſeeing they are infants uſually that receiue it there; conſidering alſo*Of which ſee before, p. 29. their profeſſion of Chriſt, and baptizing with water, in the name of the Father, the ſonne, and the holy Ghoſt: & that this alone is indeed the baptiſme of that church: the other things which he ſpeaketh off, being not the baptiſme it ſelf, but erroneous opinions and ſinfull addititions thereabout: Fourthly, keeping ſtil to the Papiſts opinion, as it is held by themſelues hereabout (of which I vvill not ſtand here to treat) let us for better finding out of the trueth, admit that ſome of yeres (not knowing better) doe ſo receiue it as here is ſaid, thinking that it conferreth grace & vvaſheth avvay ſinnes, &c. yet vvhenas once they are baptized in the Name of the Lord, as is aforeſaid, vvith the*Of which ſee before, p. 29. profeſſion that is made of the Chriſtian faith in that church; and shal then afterward perceiue their errors hereabout. let it novv well be conſidered, vvhether yet notwithſtanding the baptiſme thus received be in it ſelf an Idoll and a lye to be rejected, or that onelyonly the errors and corruptions brought in by men are to be renounced, and not the baptiſme it ſelf: which is Gods ordinance in that church (as circumciſion was in Iſrael) though thus abuſed & perverted: and ſeeing that the very ground of baptiſme in deed is†See before p. 23. the covenant and promiſe of God, and not the underſtanding, much leſſe the erroneous underſtanding and opinions of men. Fiftly, to returne to the points we had in hand, let it be obſerved, that all vvho are there baptized, doe ſo receiue it, as there it is miniſtred: and that commonly in their infancie: at which time they know not what errour or abuſe is held or done thereabout. So as if their opinons and abuſes make it in deed to be a lye in the right hand of all that ſo receiue it, as there it is abuſed & corrupted, thē should all that are ſo baptized, when they come to yeeres of underſtanding, utterly renounce it as a meer Idol and a very lye: as the Prophet here teacheth, Eſa. 44, 2. Which how ſtrongly it implyeth Anabaptiſtrie, and ſeduceth thereunto, let the vviſe and unpartiall judge. Finally, vvhen ſome of the Iewes and Pagans, comming to be Chriſtians according to the faith of the church of Rome, & making‡See before pag. 29. ſuch profeſſion thereof, as they make themſelues, doe thereupon (being not yet further inſtructed) ſo receiue baptiſme as there it is held and miniſtred: vvill they now ſay, that their baptiſme ſo received is a lye in their right hand, as the Prophet ſpeaketh, Eſa. 44, 20. and yet hauehave them ſtill to reteyne the ſame baptiſme: vvhichwhich if it be unto any, it is unto theſe and ſuch like, vvho being of yeeres, doe ſo receiue it, as is aforeſaid. Yet the Anabaptiſts thēſelues acknowledge,†M. Sm. Character of the beaſt pag. 49. That if the Papacie did not baptiſe infants, but onelyonly men confeſſing their faith & their ſinnes, into Chriſt the Sonne of God, or into the Trinitie, though they reteyned their falſe miniſterie, worship, & government, & other their abominations, yet the baptiſme ſhould be true and not to be repeated. Which cannot be, if it vvere a lye in the right hand of al that ſo receiue it. For hovv should it both be true baptiſme, not to be repeated: & yet alſo be a lye in the right hand, vvhichwhich is to be rejected? Eſa. 44, 20. Eyther therefore we muſt diſtinguish betvveene the baptiſme it ſelf, as it is Gods ordinance, and between the errors & abuſes of men that miniſter and receiue it: to reteyne the one as true and holy; and to renounce the other as falſe and corrupt: or of neceſſitie the baptiſme muſt be rejected, and rebaptization admitted. For vvho can reteyne a lye in his right hand, & not ſinne? Or who having grace & godlines would liue in ſuch eſtate as the Prophet ſpeaketh off in the place alledged by themſelues. Let this man like it, if he pleaſe: The Prophets ſaying is, He feedeth of aſhes, a deceived heart hath turned him aſide, that he cannot deliver his ſoule, nor ſay, Is there not a lye in my right hand? Eſa. 44, 20.
8. That the Romish baptiſme is ſuch, as the ſaying of the Apoſtle is verified in it, an Idoll is nothing in the world, 1 Cor. 8, 4. that is, as othervvhere he expoundeth it himſelf,†Annot on Pſal. 96.5. and 83, 19 a thing of nought: and‡Arrow againſt Idol. p. 13, 14. therefore nothing to be eſteemed; alſo, a lothſome or deteſtable thing, an abomination; a vanity, a lye, unprofitable, falſe-vanitie, leaſing, and vaine-iniquitie, &c. And if the ſaying of the Apoſtle be verified in it, an Idol is nothing in the world, then it muſt needs alſo follow hereupon, that the baptiſme of the church aforeſaid hath no relation unto God, nor any divine inſtitution, repreſentation, or ſignification in it; that it repreſents no divine thing at all in the vvorld, & ſo is in deed meer nothing, touching any holy ſignificatiō or uſe to be made thereof. Of which more hereafter. In the meane time now obſerue here, that if theſe things were true, of the baptiſme aforeſaid, then it ought of neceſſitie to be rejected; euen as the Idols ſpoken off here by the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 8, 4. (compared with chap. 10, 7, 14, 19, 20, 21. Exod. 32, 1, 4, 5, 6, 20.) and in the other places by himſelf “Ibid.otherwhere alledged, Levit. 19, 4. 1 Chron. 16, 26. Ezech. 7, 20. and 11, 21. and 20, 7, 8. Jer. 2, 8, 11. and 13, 25. and 14, 22. and 16, 19. and 18, 15. and 32, 34. Hoſ. 4, 15. and 10, 8. Which agayn is groſſe Anabaptiſtrie, joyned with notorious blaſphemie.
9. That vvater (the materiall thing) in popiſh baptiſme, is as the gold and ſilver (that is the matter) of the Idols, ſpoken off, Pſal 115, 4. Whereas the uſe of water in baptiſme is appointed by the Lord, and ſtill to be reteyned: Ioh. 1, 33. vvith Matt. 3, 11, 16. and 28, 19. Act. 8, 36. and 10, 47. but the uſe of gold and ſilver for Idols is forbidden by the Lord, & utterly to be abandoned. Exo. 20, 23. Deu. 7, 25, 26. & 12, 3. 1 Chro. 14, 12. vvith Pſa. 115, 4 — 8. & 135, 15-18.
10. That the outvvard action and vvork of the Prieſts hands that baptizeth, is as the vvork of the mens hands that make the Idols ſpoken off, Pſal. 115, 4. But this is a vvork of hethenish idolatrie, utterly to be defaced? whereas the other is a work of Chriſtian baptiſme, ſtill to be reteyned and continued. To which ende let here alſo be obſerved, hovv they blame the comparing of the church of Rome in their defection, with Apoſtate Iſrael, becauſe†Animad. p. 48. the holy Ghoſt compareth Antichriſts church with the *Rev. 11, 2, 8. and 17, 5.Gentiles, euen the moſt vile, the Sodomites, Egyptians, Babylonians, and heathen Romans. Like as the Anabaptiſts themſelues alſo (diſputing againſt the baptiſme of the church of Rome and England, and excepting againſt the reaſon taken frō the circumciſion of Iſrael) alledge that“M. Sm. Charact. p. 48. the Apoſtaſie of Antichriſt is deeper then the apoſtaſie of Iſraell, becauſe Antichriſtians are not called Iſraelites, but Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentiles, in the Revelation: Whereby the holy ſpirit of wiſdome giveth us to conceiue, that he doeth account the apoſtaſie equal to Paganiſme it ſelf, yea to the very worſt kind of Paganiſme. Whereupon theſe doe utterly diſclayme both the Baptiſme it ſelf of the Church of Rome, and the comparing of it vvith the circumciſion kept in apoſtate Iſrael: how ever the other aforeſaid, (not vvithout contradiction to themſelues in this place and their other aſſertions) ſay here, that the work of the hands of the Idolatrous prieſt who baptizeth, doth remaine, as did the work of the Idolaters circumciſing in Iſraell. Which how can it be, if the matter and work of baptiſme (the water, & outward action of the Prieſts hands baptizing) be like the matter & vvorkmanship of the Idols, ſpoken of Pſal. 115, 4. Of which more hereafter in their contradictions.
11. Touching the relation (which is the maine thing in a Sacrament) that it ſhould ſeale up unto them the forgiuenes of ſinnes, &c. ſo it is a vaine idol & nothing. But obſerue here firſt, that the Sacraments in their relation are not onelyonly ſeales, but ſignes alſo. Gen. 17, 11. Rom. 4, 11. As themſelues writing otherwhere of circumciſion, ſay,‡Annot. in Gen. 17, 11. it is a ſigne or token, which ſheweth one thing to the eye, another to the mynd. Novv (by their aſſertion here) the Baptiſme aforeſaid sheweth nothing at all to the mynd: and ſo it is a vayn Idoll, and nothing: & that which it shevveth to the eye, is but as the gold and ſilver of the heathens Idols, Pſa. 115, 4. Which if it vvere true, then in deed here should be nothing of Gods ordinance, nothing of a true Sacrament, no true baptiſme, but an Idol. And can they then blame the Anabaptiſts, that renounce it wholly; and get another, vvhichwhich (they think) hath the relation of a Sacrament in it? Moreover in the place aforeſaid they ſay further, that*Ibid. the Apoſtle calleth the ſigne alſo a ſeale, Rom. 4, 11. which ſerveth for aſſurance of the thing ſignified. And ſo the Hebrew doctors uſe the phraſe of ſealing their ofſpring with the ſigne of the holy covenant. Maymon. in Miſn. treatiſe of Circumciſion. chap. 3. S. 3. But here they teach that this is not a ſeale vvhichwhich ſerveth the receivers for aſſurance of the thing ſignified: and ſo it is a vayn Idol & nothing. Beſides that by this it wil follow (as theſe alſo hold) that they are not under the covenāt of God, but divorced from the Lord, and ſo indeed vvithout all hope of ſalvation, in that eſtate. For if any of them dying in that eſtate, be ſaved, then it muſt needs be that God is their God, and they his in Chriſt; and conſequently that they are under the covenant of God: So as then the relation (which is the mayn thing in the Sacrament) may be found in their baptiſme, to ſeale up unto them the forgiuenes of ſinnes: And ſo it is not then a vayn Idol & nothing: vvhichwhich here they affirme. If they think to help it out, vvith that clauſe of not ſealing up unto them the forgiuenes of ſinnes: let them (beſides that vvhichwhich is ſaid“Pag. 37. &c. in the anſvver of the former objection) conſider vvith themſelues, vvhether they think that the baptiſme receiued in the trueſt & beſt churches, do ſeale up to hypocrites the forgiuenes of their ſinnes. And if they think not, whether there they will ſay, that the baptiſme of thoſe churches, hath not the relation, which is the maine thing in a Sacrament? It is generally held,“Act. 8, 13. &c. that Simon Magus, vvho was baptiſed by Philip the Euangeliſt, was an hypocrite, & that his baptiſme did not ſeal up (as here they underſtand ſealing up) unto him the forgiuenes of his ſinnes: wil they therefore ſay, that the baptiſme miniſtred by the Euangeliſts, had not the relation, which is the mayne thing in a Sacrament? Beſides that thus the relation of the Sacraments should depend vvholly upon man,P. 23. &c. and Advertiſ. pag. 59, &c. and not upon the Lord, or his ordinance at all: as I hauehave shewed here before. But to ſpeak of the church of Rome in particular: I aske, whether the baptiſme had in that church, ſeale up the forgiuenes of ſinnes unto any of thē that receiue it, or to none at all. If they ſay, that it ſealeth this to ſome of them: then their aſſertions here are untrue and erroneous, and the conſequents here before deduced thereabout ſtand firme againſt them, and this clauſe helpeth thē not to shift it of. If they ſay, to none at all, then neyther to any infants there baptized, and ſo dying; nor to thoſe that being of yeeres, leaue the eſtate of that church: & ſo not to thoſe among theſe men thēſelues, that were there baptized. Now if that baptiſme there received, do not as touching the relation (vvhichwhich is the mayn thing in a ſacrament,) ſeale up unto them the forgiuenes of their ſinnes, what other ſacrament of baptiſme hauehave they that doth it? Any other, or none at al? If an other, then they are Anabaptiſts, whoſe error and iniquitie is shewed before. If no other but it, then eyther they muſt graunt that the baptiſme there received hath the relatiō of a ſacrament, to ſeale up unto them the forgiuenes of ſinnes, or that as yet they hauehave none at all that doth it; but muſt now get it to themſelues: and that alſo before they may partake of the Lords ſupper, as was shewed before. And thus every way they fall into Anabaptiſtrie, and ſo into notable error: beſides that novv in the meane time they ſtand Idolaters (and ſo muſt be content to be eſteemed) if the baptiſme which they hauehave received, and ſtill reteyne, hauehave not the relation of a ſacrament unto thē, but be a vayn Idol & nothing.
12. As it is a notorious error in the Papiſts, to ſay (as here he noteth) that baptiſme doth quite take away ſinnes, and conferre grace: ſo theſe men alſo themſelues erre not a litle, when they ſay, that the baptiſme (vvhichwhich is reteined and received in that Church) hath not the relation of a Sacrament unto them, but is a vayne idoll and nothing, becauſe they ſay of it, that it quite taketh awaye ſinnes, &c. Shall mens erroneous ſayings or opinions make a nullitie of Gods ordinances, of his ſignes, ſeales and ſacraments? Cannot God be true, though they be lyers? Cannot God continew his own ſignes & ordinances, though there be error and corruption in the churches thereabout? Cannot Gods trueth & ſacrament ſtand on his part, though men doe erre and tranſgreſſe on theirs? Doth Gods ſigne and ſeale looſe the relation, and become an Idoll and nothing, if man fall into error & ſinne concerning it?Annot. on Gen. 17, 11. What then shall vve think eyther of that opinion of the Ievves touching circumciſion, which himſelf othervvhere noteth, how they ſay, that at what time a man is ſealed with this holy ſeale of this ſigne (of circumciſion) thenceforth he ſeeth the holy bleſsed God properly, and the holy ſoule is united with him. Zohar. treating on Gen. 17, 11. or of that opinion touching the righteouſnes of works, whereabout the Apoſtle teſtifieth, that they ſought for righteouſnes, by the works of the Law: and ſo being ignorant of Gods righteouſnes, & going about to eſtabliſh their own righteouſnes, ſubmitted not themſelues to the righteouſnes of God. Rom. 9, 31, 32. and 10, 3. Now that among the vvorks of the Law, they alſo intended Circumciſion for one particular, may appeare both by the ſtrait urging of it (euen in the time of the Goſpell) upon the Chriſtians of the Gentiles, when certaine men which came down from Iudea to Antioch, taught the brethren, ſaying, Except ye be circumciſed after the maner of Moſes, ye cannot be ſaved. Act. 15, 1. and by the Apoſtles particular naming of it, in his refuting of this erroneous opiniō about the vvorks of the Lavv. Gal. 5, 2, 3. Shal we therefore think, that circumciſion in Iſrael (while it vvas in uſe by the Lavv of God) was not indeed the Lords ordinance, nor had the relation of a ſacrament unto them, but vvas a vayn idoll and nothing, becauſe of theſe or other ſuch like aſſertions and opinions then had thereabout? What alſo vvil they ſay to the baptiſme of the church of England: where they knovv the popish aſſertion vvhereof they ſpeake is rejected? will they graunt that the baptiſme there received, hath the relation, which is the mayn thing in a Sacrament, to ſeale up unto them the forgiuenes of ſinnes, and that it is not a vayn idoll and nothing, but the Lords true baptiſme and ſacrament unto them? Let them novv vvel bethink themſelues, what they hauehave ſaid heretofore, and vvhat they ſay hereafter, concerning this matter. Finally, beſides the relation in a ſacrament, there is alſo to be regarded, the commandement of God, vvho hath appointed it to be obſerved in the church. According as vve read that Chriſt, vvho vvas without ſinne (and ſo needed not for himſelf in that reſpect this relation of the ſacrament, to ſeale up unto him the forgiuenes of his ſinnes) yet in obedience of the Lavv, under which he was borne, and to fulfil al righteouſnes (being now alſo our ſuerty and redeemer) vvas himſelf both circumciſed and baptized. Mat. 3, 13, 15. Luk. 2, 21. and 3, 21, 22. So as in this reſpect alſo, baptiſme is ſtill to be obſerved and acknovvledged. And therefore as it had ben (euen in this behalf) ſinne in Iſrael & Iudah (when they vvere in their deepeſt defections) to hauehave rejected circumciſiō, & not to hauehave uſed it at all: ſo should it now be ſinne in the church of Rome, if they should reject baptiſme, and not keep it. Which againe doth plainly evince, that it is not a vayn idoll and nothing (for then it vvere not ſinne, but their duetie, utterly to caſt it avvay, and not to keep it at all:) but that it is the Lords ordinance, his baptiſme and ſacrament; which we ought ſo to eſteem & acknowledge, notwithſtanding that both the miniſtration of it be ſinfully corrupted among them, and themſelues be erroneouſly perſwaded in divers things thereabout.
13. And now by theſe things alſo may appear, what an error it is, whē they ſay, that it wil not help, to diſtinguish between baptiſme in it ſelf conſidered, as Gods ordinance: and betvveen the corruptions and idolatrous abuſe thereof: becauſe the brazen ſerpent being in it ſelf Gods ordinance at firſt, and a ſacramental ſigne of their redemption by Chriſt, yet when they burnt incenſe to it, & made it an Idol, vvas therefore deſtroyed as Nehushtan, a peece of braſſe. Which is as if they should ſay, it vvould not help to put difference between the Sunne, in it ſelf conſidered as Gods creature, and between the idolatrous abuſe thereof: Or, between the Bible, in it ſelf conſidered as Gods word and ordinance; and between the Idolatrous abuſe thereof, &c. becauſe the braſen ſerpent being at firſt Gods ordinance, and afterward idolatrouſly abuſed, vvas deſtroyed as a peece of braſſe. Or, as if there were no difference between baptiſme, vvhichwhich is an ordinarie and perpetuall inſtitution of God; and the braſen ſerpent, which vvas an extraordinarie and temporarie ordinance of the Lord. Or, that baptiſme should utterly be rejected, as being no better then the commō waſhing of our hands with water, like as the brazē ſerpent was deſtroyed as a peece of braſſe, after the idolatrous abuſe therof. How ſtrongly theſe things ſavour of Anabaptiſme, & may ſeduce thereto, let al obſerue. And hitherto of theſe errors, had in this place, about the point aforeſaid.
CONTRADICTIONS.
Thirdly, for contradictions, mark theſe particulars: 1. When they ſay, there be two ſorts of Idols, Contradictions.ſome meerely deviſed by men, as Jeroboams calues, ſome perverted by men from holy ſignes to Idols, as the braſen ſerpent, which being made an Idol, was deſtroyed as a peece of braſſe: and both theſe kinds are in popiſh baptiſme: And therefore they hauehave renounced that Romiſh baptiſme, as an impure Idoll in their abuſe, &c. Whether they meane, that they hauehave renounced it, as the calues, or as the braſen ſerpent, or as both of them (as they ſay both ſorts of Idols and obominations are in it) yet they contradict themſelues, when they ſay afterward, that the work of the Prieſts baptizing remayneth, as did the vvork of the Idolaters circumciſing in Iſraell. For this remayned ſo, as it had ben ſinne for them to renounce it, and to gather their uncircumciſion againe: and vvith this alſo they did and might come to the Paſſeover, as circumciſed perſons: vvhereas it was not their ſinne, but their duetie, to renounce all idols, and to deſtroy them, and leaue all idolatrie: and this alſo, before they came to the Paſſeover. For which ſee the hiſtories recorded, touching the abolition of idolatrie, & obſervation of the Paſſeover, both in Hezekias and Ioſias time, 2 Chron. 29, and 30, & 34, & 35 chapt. with 2 King. 18, 3, 4. and 23, 1 — 23. Now to renounce, and to reteyne, are contraries: to remayn, and to be deſtroyed, are contradictorie the one unto the other. Or if they ſay they ſpeak but of ſome abuſe, & meane not, that they hauehave renounced the baptiſme aforeſaid as an impure Idol: then beſides their shifting noted before, to vvhat purpoſe is it (when our queſtion is about the baptiſme, vvhether it be an Idoll or not) to tell us that there be tvvo ſorts of …dols, &c. and both the ſorts are in popiſh baptiſme, Eſa. 44, 20.and that therefore they hauehave re…ounced it as an impure Idoll in their abuſe, &c. Yea, that the Romiſh baptiſme is † a …ye in their right hand, &c. and that the ſaying of the Apoſtle is verified in it, an Idoll … nothing in the world. 1 Cor. 8, 4. For if ſo it were, then in deed it ought to be renounced as a lye and an Idoll, and not to remayne, as the circumciſion …n Iſraell did.
2. Againe, one while they ſay, that in popiſh baptiſme the waſhing vvith vvater in nomine patris &c. is an holy ſigne turned into an idol, as vvas the brazen ſerpent, vvhichwhich in it ſelf vvas Gods ordinance at firſt, and a ſacramental ſigne of redemption by Chriſt: Another vvhile they ſay, that in popiſh baptiſme, both the vvater is as the gold and ſilver of the heathen Idols, and the outvvard action or vvork of the Idola…rous prieſts hands that baptizeth, is as the vvorkmanſhip of the mens hands, that made the Idols, spoken of, Pſal. 115, 4. and as touching the relation of a ſacrament, it is a vayn idoll and nothing, as were the heathen idols whereof the Apoſtle ſaith, an idol … nothing in the vvorld, 1 Cor. 8, 4. Which though for the matter and vvorkmanſhip, it be ſomething, yet for the relation unto God, or divine grace, it is nothing: & as otherwhere alſo*Arrovv againſt Idol. p. 13, 14. they ſpeak of Idols, that they are things of naught, becauſe they …aue nothing of that vvhichwhich fooles think they hauehave: and are therefore nothing to be eſteemed, ſeeing an Idol is nothing in the vvorld, as the Apoſtle ſaith 1 Cor. 8, 4.
3. So one vvhile they make as if the baptiſme of the church of Rome (whereabout our queſtion is) were like the calues of Iſrael, & heathens Idols; neither of vvhichwhich vvere ever ordeyned by God, and both of which were utterly to be deſtroyed: another while they make as if it were like Iſraels circumciſion, which was Gods ordinance, remayning ſtill in their apoſtaſie, & not at all to be rejected.
4. Here they ſay, that the prieſts vvork vvhichwhich baptizeth, doth remaine, as did the vvork of the Idolaters circumciſing in Iſrael. Yet†Animad. p. 84, 102. 103. a litle after in the ſame treatiſe, they miſlike in us, and except againſt the comparing of the church of Rome vvith Apoſtate Iſrael: yea; albeit that here themſelues compare that churches baptiſme vvith the calues of Iſrael, & vvith the Ievves brazen ſerpent, yea euen with Iſraels circumciſion. Other contradictions, that might be obſerved by conference of their aſſertions otherwhere, I vvill not here inſiſt upon Let theſe ſuffice for the preſent.
ABVSE OF SCRIPTVRES.
Fourthly, for abuſe of the Scriptures here alledged,Abuſe of Scriptures. that may now alſo evidently appeare by the errors and other particulars before noted. For although there be many deviſes of men ſinfully annexed to baptiſme in the church of Rome, & ſome wicked opinions erroneouſly held concerning it among them: yet baptiſme both‘Rom. 6, 3. was there, as Gods ordinance, before theſe corruptions and errors; and ſo hath ben continued in that church to this day; and ought alſo ſtill to be reteyned: the corruptions …nely and the errors being renounced & rejected. So then the baptiſme …ere had (vvhereabout our queſtion is) neither is like Ieroboams calues …oken off, 1 King. 12, 28. nor is an extraordinarie and temporarie ſigne,1 King. 12.28. as was the brazen ſerpent; nor is to be renounced, as the braſen ſerpent was deſtroyed,2 King. 18 4. for idolatrous abuſe; nor to be eſteemed as the common washing of our face vvith vvater, as the braſen ſerpent was accounted & called Nehuſhtan, a peece of braſſe: as is ſaid, in 2 Kin. 18, 4.
Eſa. 44, 202. And for the ſaying of the Prophet, Eſa. 44, 20. if the Romish baptiſme be as the lye in the right hand there ſpoken of, then should it not onelyonly be a vayne Idol of mans deviſing, and utterly to be rejected of all that hauehave ſo received it, as there it is miniſtred: but alſo til it were ſo renounced, vve might ſay of everie ſuch a one, as there the Prophet ſaith, He feedeth of aſhes: a deceived heart hath turned him aſide, that he cannot deliver his ſoule, nor ſay, Is there not a lye in my right hand? Eſa. 44, 20. The ſinfull iniquitie of which Anabaptiſtrie, is alreadie declared before. Which alſo convinceth the abuſe of this Scripture, and other like allegations of theirs here and othervvhere.
3. So when they ſtick not to affirme, that in the Romish baptiſme the ſaying of the Apoſtle is verified, an Idoll is nothing in the vvorld, 1 Cor. 8, 4. how extreemly again doth he abuſe the Scripture?1 Cor. 8, 4. And how truly is the Apoſtles ſaying verified in themſelues, that they vvaxe vvorſe and vvorſe, deceiving and being deceived? 2 Tim. 3, 13. And yet further, vvhen vvith this, they compare that which is written of the heathens idols, Pſal. 115, 4. their Idols are ſilver and gold, Pſa. 115, 4.the vvork of mens hands, applying this alſo to the baptiſme aforeſaid moſt ungodly and deceitfully: as may appeare by their owne vvords, and by the shifts, errors, and contradictions, noted out of them here before. And mark how this Scripture is thus compared with the other of 1 Cor. 8, 4. to shew by theſe two joyned together, that as an Idol, ſo popish baptiſme, for the matter and work is ſomething, but for the relation unto God, for myſticall or ſpirituall repreſentation, ſignification, confirmation, ſealing, obligation, or the like, it is nothing, yea, ſo it is a vayne Idoll and nothing? Which hovv like is it to that of†Lib. 2. de Eccleſ. triumph. &c. cap. 5, tom. 1. contr. 7. Bellarmine, which I noted here a litle before in his Shifts, vvhere he alledging this ſaying of the Apoſtle, We knovv that an Idoll is nothing in the vvorld, 1 Cor. 8. ſaith, that here an Idol is ſayd to be nothing, becauſe that although it be ſomething according to the matter, yet it is nothing formally; ſeeing it repreſenteth that vvhichwhich is nothing, & therfore neyther doth truly repreſent, neyther conſequently is in deed. Where yet note this difference withall, that Bellarmine alledgeth this Scripture, to shew (if he could) that the images had in the church of Rome, (which are Idols, yet) are no Idols indeed: And he here alledgeth the ſame Scripture, to shevv (if he could) that the baptiſme had in the church of Rome (vvhichwhich is not an Idol, yet) is an Idol & nothing in the world: & this euer touching the relation alſo, which is the mayn thing in the Sacrament: as he likewiſe ſaith. And whereas to hauehave ſome colour, he ānexeth, that the Apoſtle when he ſaith, An idol is nothing in the world, yet is not contrarie to the Prophet who ſaith, Their Idols are ſilver and Gold, the work of mens hands, what maner of reaſoning is this, but as if now ſome other would riſe up, and ſay, Neyther is the Prophet contrarie to himſelf in the ſame place, when he ſayth, They that make the Idols are like unto them, & ſo is everie one that truſtet… … them, Pſal. 115, 8. compared with ver. 4, 5, 6, 7. for though the makers of them …e not made of gold and ſilver, as the Idols be, and though they hauehave mouthes, eyes, eares, noſes and hands, that can ſpeak, ſee, heare, ſmell, and handle, vvhichwhich the Idols can not: yet they are notwithſtanding ſpiritually brutish, foolish, vayne, blind and ſenſeleſſe; and ſo are like the Idols: as other Scriptures teach us to underſtand this ſaying here, Ier. 10, 8, 14. and 51, 17, 18. Eſa. 41, 29. and 44, 9 — 20. Hab. 2, 18. Zach. 10, 2. And what were this to the purpoſe, about the queſtion and matter in hand?
4. The other Scriptures here alledged, namely Rev. 17, 11. & 18, 8, 20, 21.Reu. 17, 11 & 18, 8, 20, 21. 2 Theſ. 2, 11, 12. … Theſ. 2, 11, 12. although they be true of Antichriſt, with his adherents & apoſtaſie, and of the myſticall Babylon: and ſo may fitly be applyed to the man of ſinne & to the myſterie of Babylon, with al that lawles eſtate and iniquitie there ſpoken off: yet touching the queſtion of Baptiſme novv in hand, they are vainely alledged, and much abuſed. For difference is to be put between Antichriſts apoſtaſie; and Gods ordinances therein reteyned, (though corruptly uſed, and mixed with their ovvne inventions:) 2 Theſ. 2, 3, 4. with Ezech. 43, 7, 8. betvveen the man of ſinne; and the Temple of God, vvherein he ſitteth: 2 Theſ. 2, 3, 4. betvveen the Gentiles; & the court of the Temple, with the holy city, giuen them to tread thereon, for a time appointed. Rev. 11, 2. betvveen Babylon (the empiring city of Rome, vvith the Babylonish eſtate thereof;) and the people of God, vvhom he calleth and bringeth from thence, as he did his people of old out from Babylon of the Chaldeans, and Lot out of Sodom. Rev. 17, 3, 4, 5, …, 18. and 18, 2, 4, 5, 19, 20, 21, with Eſa. 48, 20. Ier. 50, 8, 28. and 51, 6, 7, 8, 11, 45. Zach. 2, 6, 7. and Gen. 19, 12 — 16. with Rev. 11, 8. Antichriſt, with his apoſtaſie, shalbe conſumed. His adherents being ſtrongly deluded to beleeue lyes, and not beleeving the trueth, but taking pleaſure in unrighteouſnes, shalbe damned the Beaſt shall goe into perdition: and Babylon, the great city shalbe burnt vvith fier, and throvven dovvne vvith violence, & found no more, as the holy Apoſtles and Prophets hauehave foretold: As may be ſeen in the Scriptures and chapters here alledged, 2 Theſ. 2, 3, 8, 11, 12. Rev. 17, 11. and 18, 2, 8, 18, 20, 21. compared with Ier. 50, and 51. Eſa. 13, and 14, & …1, 1 — 10. and 47. Dan. 5. Hab. 2, Zach. 8, 9. Ier. 51, 61 — 64. But vvil it therefore follovv, that the Baptiſme had in the church of Rome is no ordinance of God, no ſigne, ſeale, or ſacrament of the Lords, but a vaine idoll and nothing; and to be renounced, as an impure idoll in their abuſe; yea to be a lying ſigne, a deteſtable, and curſed ſacrament, as they often ſpeak of it? Or, that all vvho are there baptized, and retayn the baptiſme had in that church, as the Lords ſacrament, ſigne, and ſeale unto them of the forgiuenes of ſinnes, ſhalbe damned? Doe the Scriptures here alledged, proue theſe things? If not, hovv greatly doe they abuſe the Scriptures, and their Readers? as the papiſts alſo doe continually. Yet notvvithſtanding we may not becauſe of their abuſe, account the Scriptures to be an idoll, or a lye in their right hand, or nothing in the world, &c. but vve muſt ſtill eſteem them to be the holy word of God, the light of our feet and joy of our hearts, the true and ſure teſtimonies of the Lord: how ever they be perverted and abuſed by them. And hitherto of their abuſe of the Scriptures in this place.
VAINE DISTINCTIONS, AND Anabaptiſticall aſſertions.
Vain diſtinctions and Anabaptiſticall aſſertions.Fiftly, for vaine diſtinctions, and Anabaptiſticall aſſertions: obſerue theſe: 1. That he maketh tvvo ſorts of Idols, and ſayth both the kinds are in popiſh baptiſme: and yet neyther of them is to the point in hand: as may be ſeen by the particulars aforeſaid. Beſides that in right proprietie of ſpeach, this rather sheweth tvvo ſorts of Idolaters, then of Idols: the braſen ſerpent being not in deed an idoll, but onelyonly idolatrouſly abuſed by them*2 King. 18, 4. that burnt incenſe unto it. Neyther doeth the Scripture (that I can find) call it an Idoll: or any where take Idols to be types and ſacramentall ſignes unto us of redemption by Chriſt, as†Num. 21 8, 9. with Joh. 3, 14.15. the brazen ſerpent was to Iſrael in the wildernes: as here by themſelues is obſerved. Thus alſo (as they doe) not two onelyonly, but many ſorts of Idols may be made in other reſpects: As beſides thoſe that are here named by themſelues; and ſuch alſo, as are onelyonly fictions and imaginations of the mynd; ſome to be of ſuch things as being giuen by the Lord, for the common uſe and ſervice of the world, yet are made Idols by men unto themſelues,Lev. 19, 4. Deu. 4, 15, 16 — 19. Ier. 10, 2, 3. Hoſ. 13, 2, Act. 27, 42, 43. Phil. 3, 19. Col. 3, 5. 1 Joh. 5, 21 as the Sunne, Moone, Starres, &c. ſome parts of the body, and other creatures giuen to man alſo for his uſe, as the belly, money, and the like, are by many made their God: Alſo kings and Princes in kingdomes; Husbands, vviues, and children in families; Miniſters and people in churches; yea the church, and Chriſt himſelf, are often made Idols, by the vayne opinions, ſinnes, and abuſe of men: and many other the like things, which were long to declare & inſiſt upon in particular. But shal vve therefore ſay, that theſe indeed are Idols, and ſo many ſeveral ſorts of Idols alſo? And that they are not the true Sunne, Moone, Starres, &c. Or should we not rather acknowledge, that theſe are the Lords good ordinances, benefits, & mercies unto us: vvhichwhich many abuſe idolatrouſly, to their ovvne hurt, & to the dishonour of God; but not to the annihilating of the Lords inſtitutions themſelues? And novv by this occaſion, let me wish theſe men to conſider well with themſelues, whether their ovvne errors (about this and other matters) be not in deed idols before the Lord:Exod. 20, 4.5.6. Ezec. 14, 7. Hoſ. 13, 2. 1 Joh 5, …1. ſuch as be all erroneous opinions and courſes in religion, vvhichwhich men frame to themſelues according to their ovvne underſtanding; whether concerning Chriſt himſelf, or concerning his faith, order, vvorship, or any part of religion; othervviſe then the Lord hath himſelf preſcribed in his word. By meanes whereof it cometh often to paſſe, that many vvho think themſelues moſt free from idolatrie, & hauehave their eyes onelyonly bent upon others in this behalf, are yet notwithſtanding them ſelues deeply plunged therein.
2. It is alſo a vayn diſtinction, as touching the queſtion in hand, when to reconcile the Apoſtles vvords vvho ſaith, an idoll is nothing in the world, 1 Cor. 8, 4. with the Prophets vvords, vvho ſaith, their idols are ſilver & gold, the vvork of mens hands, Pſal. 115, 4. they tell us, that an idoll for the matter is ſomething, but for relation to God or divine grace it is nothing. For what concerneth this the Lords ordinance of baptiſme, that is the ſigne of his covenant, & hath relation thereto, &c? Or what agreement hauehave idols with the Lords ordinances: that here they giuegive us idle diſtinctions concerning Idols?
3. For other odious & Anabaptiſtical aſſertions note theſe novv likewiſe together, which hauehave here before upon ſeveral occaſions ben obſerved alreadie. 1. That he calleth Chriſts baptiſme (corrupted) Antichriſts Chriſtening. 2. That making two ſorts of Idols, he ſayth there is a mixture in Antichriſts Chriſtening, of both ſorts of abominations. 3. That therefore they hauehave renounced the Romiſh baptiſme, as an impure idoll in their abuſe, &c. 4. That it is a lye in the right hand of all that ſo receiue it, Eſa. 44, 20. 5. And that the ſaying of the Apoſtle is verified in it, an idoll is nothing in the world. 1 Cor. 8, 4.6. That the vvater in baptiſme there received, is as the gold & ſilver of the hethens Idols, ſpoken of, Pſal. 115, 4. 7. That the outward action and work of the prieſts hands in baptiſme, is as the work of mens hāds that make the Idols aforeſaid. 8. That touching the relation (which is the mayn thing in a Sacrament) &c. ſo it is a vayn Idol and nothing. 9. That it wil not help to ſay, that baptiſme in it ſelf conſidered, is Chriſts ordinance (though corruptly abuſed and adminiſtred among them) becauſe the braſen ſerpent being in it ſelf Gods ordinance at firſt, and a ſacramental ſigne of redemption by Chriſt: yet they that burnt incenſe unto it, made it an Idol, and therefore as Nehushtan (a peece of braſse) it was deſtroyed. What ſtrength this giveth (if there vvere trueth and waight in it) & how neare it commeth to that other aſſertion, which ſome among thē boldly affirme, that the baptiſme aforeſaid is no more or better to be eſteemed, but as the common waſhing of our hands or faces with water, let ſuch as are vviſe conſider: As alſo vvhat great ſeduction and erroneous grounds leading to Anabaptiſtrie, are cowched in the aſſertions aforeſaid. And theſe, ſo many together in the compaſſe of one page, beſides infinite the like othervvhere. Wherein they should hauehave had the more care of their own ſayings; leaſt while they impute blasphemie to the Papiſts (as here they doe, & juſtly) they fal themſelues alſo, by their aſſertions, into the ſame tranſgreſſion and impietie.
Other things more might be obſerved and anſwered about the particulars aforeſaid: but theſe are ynough: & more then here I would hauehave noted, but that their owne dealing, and the regard of others and of the truth it ſelf, did urge me thereunto. And hitherto of the Shifts, errors, contradictions, abuſe of Scriptures, vaine diſtinctions, and Anabaptiſticall aſſertions, found in theſe fewe lynes. What abundant ſtore of ſuch ſtuffe he hath about his and other matters beſides, in this treatiſe of his (vvhichwhich vvere endles …o inſiſt upon in particular) may euen by this litle ſufficiently appeare to ſuch as are judicious & unpartiall. Now here I wil onelyonly proceed to one or two moe objections that are much urged about the matter in hand.
OBJECTION IIII.
But Iſraell in their defection (from whom divers of the former reaſons & anſwers are taken) becomming Apoſtate,M.A. &c when Ieroboam ſet up the golden Calues,Animad v. p. 68, 70. 81, 82, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, &c. and Iſrael committed Idolatrie with them, were not in their apostaſte the people of God, or his church: but were caſt off by the Lord, and divorced from him; the covenant was broken not onelyonly on their part, but alſo on his: ſo as now he gaue them a bill of divorce, and ceaſed to be their God, and they to be his people. And (as touching circumciſion or any ſuch ordinances reteyned among them) *Animad. pag. 70.ſeeing they then were fallen†2 Chr. 15 3. frō God, and from his church, and ſo were‡Ier. 3, 8. divorced from the Lord, and were‘Hoſ. 2, 2. not his wife, but*Hoſ. 13, 1 dead in their ſinnes: the ordinances of God which they in ſhew reteyned, could not be unto them the ſignes and ſeales of forgiuenes of ſinnes, & of life eternall, and therefore were in their uſe of them, falſe and deceitfull; as were alſo the ordinances of God reteyned in other nations, as“Numb. 23.1. Pompon. Laetus de ſacerdo. &c. Altars Sacrifices, Priests, tithes, firſt fruits, incenſe, meat offrings, drink offrings, feaſts, baptiſmes or waſhings, anoyntings, excōmunications, prayers, vowes, & many the like, wherof al hiſtories do beare record, that the Gentiles did reteyn thē.