An animadversion to Mr Richard Clyftons advertisement Who under pretense of answering Chr. Lawnes book, hath published an other mans private letter, with Mr Francis Iohnsons answer therto. Which letter is here justified; the answer therto refuted: and the true causes of the lamentable breach that hath lately fallen out in the English exiled Church at Amsterdam, manifested, by Henry Ainsworth.

The 7. article

7. We held that the baptism of Rome, was as true baptisme, as circū∣cision in the Apostasie of Israel was true circumcision, and needed not to be renounced and repeted: Now we were taught that the baptism afore∣sayd is an Idol; and we know al Idols &c, are to be renounced and rejec∣ted, Isa. 30.22. and an Idol is nothing in the world, 1. Cor. 8.4. so then such baptism is nothing.

I answer; our former profession and writing hath been, that circumcision in the Apostasie of Israel, a could be no true sacrament, no true seal of the covenant of Gods favour unto them: also that baptism deli∣vered in the false church is no true seal of Gods covenant, or true sacrament. Mr. Iohnson himself hath defended this very same, that b in that estate of their Apostasie it could not be a true Sacrament, and so for the baptism in Rome; not a true but a false sacrament. So the contrarie∣tie must be thus, heretofore we held it to be a false sacrament, but now we were taught it is an Jdol. Between these I hope al men of judgment, which know what an Jdol meaneth, wil think ther is no contradic∣tion. But is not this good conveyance, for them to say; as true baptism, as circumcision in the Apostasie of Jsrael was true circumcision: wheras we professed of that baptisme (as also of that circumcision)

that it could not be a true sacrament unto them, but a false? Wil not the judicious reader see, that they cast a myst before mens eyes, to dis∣grace the truth which themselves formerly professed? As for the consequences, I have before c answered them; and shewed how though the Idol be put away, ther need no repeting again of the outward washing: and have proved that Antichrist hath turned the Lords baptisme into an Idol, as the Iewes did the brazen serpēt, d by burning incense to it: and that the most conscionable in our own nation have so professed, and the Vniversitie of Cambridge printed, e that the church of Rome transformeth the sacraments (yea even Christ, and God himself) into Jdols. But these our opposites are gone from the truth and from themselves herein, into the tents of our common adversaries, M. Gifford and others, who would have concluded hereupon a new outward washing: but were refuted by Mr Barrow. And Mr Iohnson once professed that f he thought he should never have seen any more absurd writing then M. Giffards; though now he reasoneth like him. He also told the Oxford Doctors, that g to hold the popish church to be a true church, having a true ministerie and true sacraments, or els that they are unbaptised, and must admitt of the A∣nabaptists rebaptisation, are nought els, but gross errours and notorious ab∣surdities. Yet loe how he now presseth us with the same things: and passeth over our reasons rendred heretofore, without answering them as is meet.

Notes

• Plea for in∣fants p. 166 167.1••8. Treat. a∣gainst Ana∣baptists p. 16. &c. A∣pol. p. 108. &c. Answ. to Mr Iak. p 17. & ••••.
• a

  Dis••ov. pag. 116.
• b

  Apol. p. 109. &c.
• c

  pag. 69. &c.
• d

  2. King. 18, 4.
• e

  M. Perk. Wa••ning against I∣dol. p. 23.
• Refut. of Giff. p. 65, &c.
• f

  Answ. to M. Iakob. in pref. p. 1
• g

  Apolog. p. 113.