A Reply to a Pretended Christians Plea for the Church of Rome, Part 13
Touching Hos. 2. 2.
WHeras the Lord testifieth of Israel, that she was not his wife, nor he her husband: and willeth her therfore to put away her whordomes, left he stript her naked &c. Hos. 2. 2. 3. Mine opposite laboureth by comparing the prophesies before, in ch. 1. and after in ch. 3. &c, to prove that this was not meant til Israel was put out of the land. And yet that putting out of the land, he maketh to be the stripping of her naked; which was an effect and reward of her former estate. And mixing the several prophesies togither, (wheras in the 23. verse of the 2. chapter, the Lord speaketh of the dayes under the Gospel,) he giveth this conclusiō, *Chr. plea ag. 78.Thus now she is a wife, and not a wife: she is a wife, but a wife of whordoms, Hos. 1. 2. she is not a wife, that doth demeane her self loyally as she should, but hath her adulteries between her brests: Hos. 2. 2. And after a longer discourse, he inferreth, †pag. 84.But what is this to the point of the question in hand, which is not touching the condition afterward, but concerning their circumcision and estate, from the time of Ieroboams apostasie, whiles they were yet in the land. &c.
Answ. He keepeth his wont, to pretend the question otherweise then it is. The point was indefinite about the circumcision of Israel in their Apostasie. These were his own words, “Advertis. pag. 54.The baptisme of the church of Rome, is true baptisme, as the circumcision in Israels apostasie was true circumcision, and not to be repeated againe. And if it be not a true baptisme, it is a false baptisme &c. He referred us not by any scripture, to their apostasie before or after they were put out of the land. I answered him in a few lines, and *Animadv. pag. 69.shewed him from 2 Chron. 30. & Ezr. 6. 21. that there was no repeating of circumcision, therfore not of baptisme. Those two scriptures he himself †Chr. plea pag. 28.also now urgeth against the Anabaptists: the latter wherof speaketh of a time long after their captivitie. Then I briefly referred him to 2 Chron. 15. 3. Ier. 3. 8. Hos. 2. 2. & 13. 1. to shew their synfull estate to be such, as that “Animad. p. 70.the ordinances of God which they in shew reteyned, could not be unto them the signes and seales of forgivenes, and of life eternal; and therfore wire in their use of them false and deceytfull. Thus neyther he nor I, put any difference of their estate; though now he pleads it for advantage. But it is sufficient for to end our controversie, if the things I speak of, be after their captivity: for then returning with repentance, they were not recircumcised: so we, if we be baptised in false churches, need not be rebaptised. So he hath written many leaves to plead for the whore Israel; but where shall we find this soundly concluded, which I denyed, that when they were not the Lords wife, nor he their husband; then in that estate (were it before or after their captivitie, let him take his choise,) their circumcision sealed unto them forgivenes of synns, and life eternal. This not being proved, he hath led his reader into a wood, where it would weary any man to folow him in his windings: and yet in the end, he shall not find that which his soule thirsteth after, touching their circū cision, when they were no longer the Lorde wife. Now to his distinction, she is a wife, and she is not a wife: take it at the best, she is a wife of whordoms, a wife threatned to be stripped naked &c. Where is the promise of forgivenes of her synns, unless she repented? And where is the testimony of her repentance? No where, (til Christ made the remnants of their posterity his wife, and his people, after they had been no people, 1 Pet. 2. 9. 10.) but whiles they were in the land, they grew more hard, unbeleeving and unrepentant, 2 King. 17. 13. 14. 15. &c. But when she had the bil of divorce, Ier. 3. and was indeed not his wife, nor he her husband, but he had stript her naked, and sent her among the heathens her companiōs: where now was the seale of the forgivenes of her synns, she abiding unrepentant? This is the thing that should be shewed, which is not to be seen in all his large discourse.
And what help findeth he at the hands of the Chaldee paraphrase which he *Chr. plea pag. 86.citeth thus, Rebuke the congregation of Israel, and say unto her, that she submitteth not her self to my worship, therfore neyther doth my †Christ.Word accept of her prayers: until she shall remove her evil works &c. Wil this prove true circumcision among them? First it appeareth that the Paraphrast understood this of them whiles they were in the land, otherweise then he, which referreth it to their after state. Secondly, in that synfull estate whiles they worshiped or served not the Lord, but Idols (as after the Chaldee speaketh,) the Word of God, that is Christ (as himself expoundeth it) accepted not their prayers. And could they then offer any true sacrifice or administer true sacrament, when God testified that Christ was not their mediator, to accept their prayers? Seing it is certaine, that no man cometh to the Father but by him, Joh. 14. 6. Thus men may be overseen sometimes, to cite authors on their side, which eyther say nothing, or look quite an other way.