Arrow Against the Separationists — John Paget

Arrow Against the Separationists · John Paget

CHAP. VII. Of temples: The firſt argument, examined.

Section, 1.

Hen. Ainſ.FOr the Nunnes Chappel, (the place where you aſſemble,) you need ſerch no records: I hope you think Chriſt inſtituted no ſuch Nunnes, Nunries, or Chappels for them: but that they belong to Satans ſynagogue, in what yeare ſoever they were founded. And they being groſſe idolaters, their chapel was an Idolie: (as the a1 Cor. 8.10.Apoſtle nameth it,) or Idol houſe. And though themſelves ſayd no maſse, yet were they pertakers of the maſſe ſayd by their Preists, and as is likely, within their own Cloyster, as was the cuſtome in other Cloysters: and if not for that, yet for other falſe Gods it was erected.

reason 1 To our firſt reaſon againſt the reteyning of them to be places wherein we ſhould worſhip God, from Exod. 20.4 5.6. with Deut. 12.3. You anſwer ſix things.

1. That the commandement in Deut. 12. was a temporarie ordinance, part of Moſes politie now abrogate, &c. To prove this, you inſtance an other like law in Deut. 13. for deſtroying an apoſtate citie, with all the ſpoiles thereof, &c. not now in force.

I anſwer, from our Saviours teſtimonie, that he came not to deſtroy the Law, but to fulfyl it, Mat. 5.17. ſo that ſuch judicials as apperteyned to the moral law written on the Tables, and are of common equitie to all nations, are not by Chriſt abrogated, touching the ſubſtance of them. Such is this law, perteyning to the 2. Commandement, and it is of common equitie to all nations for to ſhun b1. Cor. 10.14. 1. Ioh. 5.21 Rev. 18.idolatrie: therfore it is not abrogated by Chriſt. And I adde, touching the ſubſtance of them: becauſe you inſiſt vponupon ſuch manner and meanes as were then vſed. For there might be ſome manner and meanes then vſed, which I ſay not that Magiſtrates are now bound vntounto: as that all ſuch malefactors as were then to be ſtoned, muſt be ſtoned now, and may dye no other death. There were lawes in Iſrael, to cut off murderers, adulterers, and other flagitious: yet ſome things perteyning to murder and adulterie, were peculiar to that land and people, as cities of refuge, Num. 35. the expiation of murder when the Author was not knowen, Deut. 21. And ſo for the manner of puniſhing adulterie, by ſtoning, Ioh. 8.5. by burning, Lev. 21 9. or other wayes. Now I ſuppoſe you hold, that murderers and adulterers are by vertue of Gods law at this day to dye: & yet you wil not affirme that they muſt dye onelyonly after that manner that was in Iſrael. Even ſo doe I hold touching Idolaters and Idol-temples.

To your inſtance from Deut. 13 I anſwer, that it followeth not if an other law be all or any part of it abrogated, therfore this alſo in Deut. 12. is ſo likeweiſe: as the law for a murderer to dye, is not now aboliſhed becauſe of that law in Deut. 21. Secondly, you ſhew no reaſon why that law in Deut. 13. ſhould not now ſtand in force: the inconvenience which you object of thousād thouſands of people at this day, vnderunder that iudgement, is but a ſuppoſition. I preſume rather on the contrary, that you cannot name one citie at this day in the world, lyable to that iudgement: but that manifeſt difference may be put in ſundry things, from the plaine words of the law, & the common expoſition of the Hebrewes concerning the ſame. Thirdly, if any ceaſing of that law be at this day urged, it cannot in equitie be for the idolaters them ſelves, or any inſtruments of their idolatrie, but onelyonly for their civil goods, wherof there is no queſtion between you and me. And for particular idolaters which were to dye, as their goods were cDeut. 17.2-7not unlawfull: ſo the Hebrewes hold, that if any of thoſe cautions fayled which Moſes expreſſeth in Deut. 13. The perſons that ſynned, were to be ſtoned as particular perſons, and dMaimony treat. of Idolatrie, c. 4.their goods went to their heires, & ſo were not deſtroyed with them. Fourthly, if then judicial law againſt idols & idolaters be abrogated; then alſo againſt blaſphemers, murderers, &c. Which is the opinion of the Anabaptiſts, who would take the ſword from the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, upon ihu erroneous opinion that the judicials of Moſes are at an end. They have all a like authoritie; & the aboliſhing of one that is of perpetual equitie, overthroweth all. But th' Apoſtle telleth us eRom. 13.that the Magiſtrate hath the ſword, & is Gods Miniſter: therfore he is to uſe his ſword according to the will of God; & that will is not to be found, but in the iudgments given by Moſes. How ſhould the Magiſtrate puniſh malefactors lawfully, vnleſſe he doe it of faith? for whatſoever is not of fRom. 14.23.faith is ſyn. And how ſhould he do it of faith, vnleſſe he hauehave the word gRom. 10.17.of God authorizing him? And where is the word that authorizeth him to kil murderers, adulterers, buggerers, blaſphemers &c. but in the Iudicials of Moſes? It is alſo the doctrine of the Church of England that the Chriſtian Prince hApologie (By B. Iewel) c. 11. diviſ. 2.hath the charge of both Tables of the Law, committed to him of God; & for his power to aboliſh poperie, it is by them alleged iIbidem diviſ. 3.how God by his Prophets often & earneſtly commanded the Kings to cut down the groves, &c. yet you wil not admit of the ſame reaſon now brought by us; but put it off as a temporary precept, and abrogated by Christ.

Anſwer.

Ioa. Pa.IN this your declaration of the Idolatrous vſe of the place, wherein we meet for the true worſhip of God, we may obſerve: 1, the guiltines of your former writing; your preſumption in affirming you knew not what; in ſaying our Chappel was built for the breaden God and other Idolles; your ſelf do now ſeeme to ſtagger about it: you now come to ſpeak of likelyhoods, & with ifs: if not for that, yet for other falſe Gods, &c. but if not for that, then was your former aſſertion falſe. You ſay, I need ſerch no records: If I had that faculty of preſuming toſpeak of things vnknowne, as you do both touching true Churches; as before in the matter of ordinatiō; & touching the building of Popiſh Churches as here and afterwards againe, then would I not much ſtand vponupon the teſtimony of any records; but love of truth and ſobrietie teach men otherwiſe: 2, even in likelyhood, whereof you ſpeak; this Chappel was not built for the worſhip of the breaden God in the Maſſe; for beſide the teſtimony of thoſe that keep the evidence of this building, whereof I ſpake before; there is this teſtimony in generall touching Chappelles: oHoſpinian. de orig. temp. lib. 3. cap. 2Capellae ab initio, nihil altud quam oratoria ſine miſſa: that at the firſt, they were nothing els but oratories or places of prayer without the Maſſe: and if this were true touching other Chappels at the firſt building and erecting of them, much more in likelyhood for this, where their ordinary devotions were to be performed, not by a Prieſt, but by the women themſelves, that lived alone. 3, note the idlenes of that which you ſay, touching their Idol-worſhip: ſeing I granted ſo much before, and therevpon condeſcended to come vntounto the anſwer of your reaſons againſt ſuch places of worſhip, after that the Idolatrous vſe is remooved. As it is preſumption to affirme that which you cannot prove, ſo is it vaine and idle, to inſiſt vponupon that which is at firſt yeelded vntounto you. 4, though I think (as you hope) that Chriſt inſtituted no ſuch Nunnes, Nunries or Chappelles for them, &c. yet let vsus not make them worſe then they are: It is ſin to pIob. 13.7.8, &c.accept the perſon of God: and therfore on the contrary alſo a ſin to talk wickedly or deceitfully againſt the Idolatours themſelves. Thus therfore I hold of them, that their principal evill, (ſo farre as they were Nunnes, and diſtinct from other Idolatrous people one with them in their common faith,) was their Separation: This Separation was double, in the worſhip of God, having their Chappels apart from others; and in ſingle life, having their Cloyſters apart from the company of men. And yet in both theſe reſpects, I hold that the new Monkes and Nunnes of your ſeparation are more to be condemned, then theſe Nunnes, whoſe Chappel we do now vſe.For firſt, theſe Nunnes, though they worſhipped apart from thoſe that were of the ſame faith with them, yet did they this without renunciation and condemning of others, but approved them as lawfull worſhippers of God; you on the contrary in your Monaſtery ſeparate with renunciation from thoſe that are of the ſame faith with you, and leave their worſhip as a polluted thing in all Churches ſave your owne. Againe, for ſeparation from mariage, this kinde of Nunnes, whoſe chappel we have, were not ſo bad as other ſorts of them. This order of Nunnes, being called Bagines were not bound by vow vntounto ſingle life, as other orders of them were: qEtymolog. Teutonic. in vocabulo. Beghijne.Beguinae ſunt mulieres religioſae, nullo voto astrictae, in ſacro mulierum contubernio viventes, quandiu illis gratum eſt. And beſides this generall and publique evidence, touching this order, we have alſo more particular teſtimonie touching the Nunnes of this place, for the confirmation hereof: But on the contrary the Monkes and Nunnes of your ſeparatiō have a greater neceſſity layd vponupon thē, touching Mariage, and are not ſo free: your people are not allowed to mary with any godly perſon either in the Church of England, or yet in theſe reformed Churches: but you have excommunicated divers of your people for marying with the members of the Dutch Church in this citie: Theſe Baguines were free to mary when they would and to whom they would of their owne faith, But in your Cloyſter of the ſeparation there is far greater bondage: no permiſsiō to mary with thoſe that are of the ſame faith, except they be of the ſame Order with you.

TO come now vntounto your firſt argument: my firſt anſwer was that the commandement Deut. 12. vvas a temporary ordinance, &c. Your reply is, that Chriſt came not deſtroy the law but to fullfill it, Mat. 5.17. ſo that ſuch iudicialles as apperteyned to the morall law written on the Tables and are of common equity to all nations are not by Chriſte abrogated touching the ſubſtance of them. Such is this law perteyning to the 2. Commandement, and it is of common equitie vntounto all nations to ſhun r1 Cor. 10 14. 1. Ioh. 5.21. Rev. 18.idolatrie: therfore it is not abrogated by Chriſte. VntoUnto this argument I anſwer.

1. Your marginall quotations of ſcripture, do not prove that the commandement of deſtroying Idolatrous places is of common equitie to all nations: though they teach vsus to ſhun Idolarrie. Can not idolatrie be ſhunned, vnleſs the places be deſtroyed? This you ought to have proved: This is the poynt: this you leave as you found. You knew well enough before, that we grant Idolatrie is to be avoyded, but how do you thence conclude the deſtruction of the place? Your pretended common equitie being applyed vntounto the places and buildings themſelves is againſt common ſenſe, and not a word to colour the ſame, in any of theſe allegations.

2. vvhereas you adde that the judicialles touching the ſubſtāce of thē are not abrogate: & yeeld vntounto me that Magiſtrates are not now bound vntounto the ſame maner and meanes, &c. you do herein yeeld me the queſtion: and all your inſtances from Numb. 35. Deut. 21. Ioh. 8. Lev. 21.9 do ſerve for the further declaration hereof. For the maine equitie and ſubſtance of that commandement Deut. 12. is to ſhun idolatrie: the ceremoniall maner and meanes were by deſtroying and aboliſhing the places and buildings: even as the ſubſtance of that law Numb. 35. for defence of the innocent that killes an other againſt his vvill, is perpetuall, but the reſpect of the place, to be fled vntounto at that time, doth now ceaſſe: And what is more peculiar vntounto the maner and meanes of any action, then reſpect of the place: either places prohibited or places commanded? As the holines of places commanded by law, doth now ceaſſe: ſo the vnlawfulnes of places prohibited by the ſame lavv, doth in like maner ceaſſe.

3. VVhereas you graunt that Magiſtrates are not bound vntounto the ſame maner and meanes, in their execution of judgement, as by the ſame kinde of death, by burning, ſtoning, &c▪ & yet hold vvith all, that he cannot do any thing herein of faith, vvithout the vvord of God authorizing him: I vvould knovv of you vvhichwhich be thoſe places of ſcripture, that do novv authorizea Magiſtrate to put a malefactour to death, by any other kinde of death, then thoſe that are peculiarly noted in the law: vvhen you have nominated ſuch places to allow a change of the puniſhments, you ſhall then finde that the very ſame places will alſo give vsus allowance to ſhun Idolatry, without deſtroying and aboliſhing the places according to the maner and meanes in Iſrael. Forget not to prove this which I ſay vntounto you, as a ſpeciall help to bring you to the ſight of your errour.

4. Yet let me here warne you of your too much rAnnot. on Exod. 21.25.enclining to the Rabbines opinions, that allow the commutation or chang of corporall puniſhments for money, vſing great indulgence & giving diſpenſations therein, in any of thoſe caſes Exo. 21.24.25. excepting onelyonly life for life, and this even vnderunder the law it ſelf. About this poynt you ſeeme to erre doubly, both in aſcribing a contrary opinion to the Sadduces, which you know not but it was as well the opinion of the Phariſees, conſidering Mat. 5.20. with 38. as alſo in preferring the worſe opinion: though our Saviour require private men to forgive one an other yea for life it ſelf taken away, yet this was no warrant for judges in publique to change corporall puniſhments for money. VVhen you bring grounds out of the new teſtament for the change of puniſhments, ſeek better then ſuch.

For explanatiō of my former anſwer, I gave inſtance in a like example, Deut. 13. wherevnto your firſt reply is: that it followeth not, if an other law be all or any part of it abrogated, therfore this alſo in Deut. 12, &c. Herevnto I anſwer, 1. you might and ought to hauehave conceyved of that inſtance not as of a new argument by it ſelf to prove the abrogation of that law in Deut. 12. but onelyonly as of an illuſtration to make my anſwer more plaine and evident: conſidering the phraſe I vſed in alledging it thus, for example: As God, &c. 2. Seing there is the like reaſon and conſequence of things that are of like nature: though it followes not that the like law of killing the murdrer is diſanulled, becauſe the law of expiation in Deut. 21. is aboliſhed: the one of theſelawes being ceremoniall, th'other not: yet becauſe the lawes in Deut. 12. and 13. are both of them ceremoniall, apperteyning vntounto the meanes and maner of ſhunning Idolatrie, they are therfore both of them by the like conſequence to be held abrogated, ſo far as concernes the deſtruction of places, buildings, &c.

Your ſecond reply vntounto that inſtance in Deut. 13, is: that the inconvenience which I obiect of thouſand thouſands of people at this day, vnderunder that iudgement; is but a ſuppoſition: that you preſume rather on the contrary, that I cannot name one citie this day in the world, lyable to that iudgement, &c. I anſwer.

1. You alter my words: I obiected not that thouſand thouſands of people at this day were vnderunder that judgement, Deut. 13. whatſoever I might have done: but I ſayd that the goods of ſo many perſons ſhould be avoyded as execrable things, &c. if that law were in force. This might be, though ſo many perſons were not guilty of that ſin, nor lyable vntounto that judgement: ſeing the goods of one apoſtate citie being diſperſed abroad into many cities might make their riches vncleane alſo, & vnlawful for vſe, ſo that mē ſhould not know how to traffique ſafely with them, either by buying, ſelling, &c. for feare that ſome of the execrable goods might cleave vntounto their hands.

2. I marvell that you who have ſo often ſtumbled vponupon Roome when you ſhould not, do now remoove it ſo far out of your ſight: To omit other Chriſtian cities which have degenerate from Chriſtianiſme to Turciſme and Heatheniſme: that Idolatrous and apoſtate Roome is the citie which I name vntounto you, as lyable vntounto the judgement Deut. 13. if that law were ſtil in force. Shevv a difference from the plaine vvords of the lavv as you ſpeak, if you can. As for the common expoſition of the Hebrewes, whereof you alſo ſpeak, they are contrary to the law of God and not worthy to be mentioned.

Your third reply is, if any ceaſsing of that law be at this day vrged, it cannot in equity be for the Idolaters themſelves, or any inſtruments of their Idolatry, but onelyonly for their civill goods, &c. I anſwer.

1. If that law be ceaſſed for civill goods, then for the buildings and temples likevviſe which are the civill goods of men; even as the Chappel which we vſe is a part of the Magiſtrates civil goods, and by them lent vntounto vsus. The vſe which vve have of them in Gods vvorſhip hinders not but that they are our civil goods: even our Bibles though vve have a religious vſe of them both in publique and in private worſhip of God, are yet a part of our civill goods alſo. Your meeting houſe ſerving for your religious exerciſes in publique, is it not a part of your civil goods? Vnleſs you did vſe this plea before the Magiſtrates in your ſuites about the ſame, I think you vvould not long enioy the ſame.

2. If this law ceaſſe onelyonly in reſpect of civill goods, then vvhat ſhall become of infants and other litle Children, the ſIer. 7.18.inſtruments of Idolatry with their parents? Are the Magiſtrates bound to ſlay them with their apoſtate parents, as your Iew doctours would have it?

3. VVhereas you ſay that the goods of particular Idolaters which were to dy, were not vnlawfull: VVhat reaſon have you ſo to interpret that law, Deut. 17.7. vvhichwhich maketh no mention of his goods at all? And if the particular Idolater did alſo ſeek to ſeduce others ſhould not the equity and proportion of the former law in Deut. 13.17. be regarded? or ſhould the greater ſin have the leſſer puniſhment?

4. VVhereas you runne for help to Maimony your fellow labourer, and alledge the opinion of the Hebrewes holding that if any of thoſe cautions fayled vvhichwhich Moſes expreſſeth, &c. You do hereby incurre the blame which you do ſo often impute vntounto others: you make fleſh you arme, vvhichwhich yet can not ſave you. For 1. The Cautions which the Iewiſh expoſitors do obſerve from Deut. 13. touching the apoſtate city to make it lyable vntounto the judgement there ſpecifyed, are moſt vaine and abſurd, as may be ſeene in the commentarie of R. Solomon vponupon that place▪ yet your tMiſneh. tract. abodah zarah, ſive de Idololat. Cap. 4.Maimony goes far beyond him, even in the ſame chapter alledged by your ſelf, where he writes that the apoſtatecity doth not come within compaſſe of that judgement: vnleſs the perſons ſeducing the ſame were two or more then two: vnleſſe the perſons ſeducing were men and not women: vnleſſe they were men and not Children: vnleſſe the ſeducers were of the ſame citie and of the ſame tribe: vnleſſe the perſons ſeduced vvere an hundred or vpward: And a number of other abſurdities might further be noted out of the ſame Chapter, vvhichwhich you might vvell be aſhamed to mention, for had you acquainted the readers therevvith, they might eaſily have diſcerned, that your vvitneſſes vvere not vvorthy to be heard. 2. As the Ievviſh expoſitions are vaine in themſelves, ſo are they alſo contradictory vntounto one an other: vvhere as Maimony requires a hundred perſons to be ſeduced, for one condition of this apoſtaſy: R. Ioſias (as R Moſes mikkotſi uin SMG. praecept affirm. 15.recordeth) requires but ten & vpward: and many other cautions are there omitted alſo. 3. vvhat if the goods of theſe apoſtates vponupon the want of any of theſe cautions, did paſſe vntounto their heires, as the Rabbines vvould have it? This helpes you nothing, nor yet hurts me at all, vvhiles I ſpeak of the city apoſtate according to the conditions expreſſed by Moſes.

Your fourth reply is: if the iudiciall law againſt Idols and Idolaters be abrogated: then alſo againſt blaſphemers, murderers, &c. which is the opinion of the Anabaptists, who would take the ſword from the Chriſtian Magiſtrates, &c. I anſvver.

1. In this ſuppoſition you ſeek to encroach vponupon me, as though I had maynteyned that the judiciall lavv againſt Idolalaters vvere abrogated: vvhichwhich is not our queſtion, but onelyonly vvhether the places of Idol-vvorſhip, are of neceſſity to be aboliſhed: There may judgements of God be executed by Magiſtrates vponupon Idolaters to the rooting out of falſe vvorſhip, though ſome of the places be converted vntounto the vſe and benefit of the Church in the true vvorſhip of God. Here therfore you turne quite out of vvay.

2. If the judiciall lavv againſt Idolaters be not abrogated: then think ſeriouſly and conſider vvhether you yourſelf for your former Idolatries be not the Childe of death appoynted to dye by the hands of the Magiſtrate: I meane for your apoſtaſy (after ſeparation) vntounto the Idol-worſhip of the Church of England, which according to your profeſsion and judgement declared in your writings, is a moſt horrible and heynous Idolatry: This judiciall law of Moſes doth not allow any repentance vntounto the Idolatour, more then to the murderer, to ſave him from death of the body: and therfore you cannot plead that you are freed from the guiltines of death, thereby. If you can finde out any other diſtinction, excuſe or plea for the ſaving if your owne life from the ſword of Moſes judiciall lavv: you ſhall then finde out and ſhew vsus ſuch diſtinctions, as will ſerve to fruſtrate & put away many of your owne obiections againſt vsus in ſundry poynts: ſee therfore that you do not ſleightly paſſe over this matter.

3. VVhereas you ſay, touching the vſe of the ſword that the will of God, is not to be found, but in the judgements given by Moſes: & againe aſke vsus, where is the word that authorizeth the Magiſtrate to kill murdrers, adulterers, buggerers, blaſphemers, &c▪ but in the iudicialles of Moſes? It is yourſelf that by theſe erroneous ſpeeches do exceedingly gratify the Anabaptiſts: for howſoever the law of Moſes doth afford ſufficient warrant to put theſe malefactours to death: yet the moſt pregnant and evident determinations of the judiciall law, are thoſe places of the new teſtament which do expreſſely and particularly ſhew ſome of them to be of perpetuall equitie: for example, touching ech of the malefactours here named by your ſelf, there is ſpeciall warrant in the Goſpell to execute judgement vponupon them: on xMat. 26.52. Rev. 13.10 & 18.20.murdrers on yRev. 11.8 & 9.21.adulterers, and buggerers: on zRev. 13.5.11. & 17.3.4.5. compared with Rev. 14.14-20. & 17.1.16 & 18.6.7. & 19.17.18.blaſphemers, and Idolaters: for vntounto ſuch the Lord threatneth vengeance, and calles the Magiſtrates to execute his will vponupon them: And thus hath Chriſte declared his will vntounto vsus & hereby authorizeth the Iudges and princes of the earth to root out evill from among men: they have not onelyonly a general warrant to vſe the ſword, Rom. 13 as you alledge: but they have alſo theſe particular directions to ſhew them the ſeverall cauſes for which they are to draw their ſword: And therfore while you deny theſe moſt ſure warrants, & grounds of faith for the Magiſtrate to proceed by, ſending him onelyonly vntounto the judicialles of Moſes, you do hereby give great advantage vntounto the Anabaptiſts, and take away from the Church of God the principall weapons whereby they ſhould convince thoſe heretiques and defend the authoritie of Chriſtian Princes againſt them.

4. VVhereas you alledge the doctrine of the Church of Englād. I grant the ſame: that the Chriſtian Prince hath charge of both tables of the law, and that Deut. 12. may be alledged for the aboliſhing of popery: I ſhewed before that the equity of that cōmandement leads vsus to the deteſtation of Idolatry; and conſequently of popery: yet doth it not follow that it bindes vsus to the ſame maner and meanes of deteſtation, in ech ceremony & circumſtance of place, time, &c. Theſe ought to have bene diſtinguiſhed by you.

5. Suppoſe that our temples were to be pulled downe by the Magiſtrate in the ſame maner that was obſerved vnderunder Moſes policie; and that the Magiſtrates did offend in reteyning them: yet where is your warrant, for ſuch an offence of the rulers to ſeparate from the worſhip of God in thoſe temples? I call for your proofe herein: I pray you ſet it downe plainely & fully. This concernes the poynt of ſeparation and ought to be inſiſted vponupon more then many others.

Section 2.

Hen. Ainſ.YOur 2. exception is, that God commands to aboliſh their names alſo, Deut. 12.3. But we finde Idolatrous names reteyned vponupon ſundry perſons: Rom. 16. Phil. 2. Tit 3, &c.

I anſwer: Firſt then it ſeemeth you hold, that Magiſtrates are neyther bound to aboliſh idols, nor the names of falſe Gods out of their dominion: ſeing the law in Deut. 12. which commandeth to deſtroy ſuch, is in your judgement abrogated. Wherin you come ſhort of the Zele which is ſayd to have heen in P. Silveſter the firſt that he aPolydore Virgil. l. 6. c. 4.abhorring the memorial of the vaine gentile Gods, decreed that the dayes of the week which had afore the names and titles of the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercurie, &c. ſhould be called the firſt, ſecond, third, fourth ferie (or day of the week) in ſemblable maner as the Iewes (from Gods warrant Gen. 1.) counted their dayes from the Sabbath day. Contrary vntounto you, I hold that law in Deut. 12. moral and perpetual, both for falſe Gods, and for their Name. For as the Church of old, bNum. 32.38.changed the idolatrous names of Nebo, and Baal meon: ſo God promiſed, cHoſ. 2.17to take away the names of Baalim out of his peoples mouth, that they ſhould be no more remembred by their name. It is alſo propheſied of Chriſt (in Pſal. 16.4.) that he ſhould not take vp the names of ſuch, into his lips. Moreover, all vncleannes ſhould dEph. 5.3.not once be named among the ſaincts: and if not bodily vncleannes, neyther ſpiritual, which is idolatrie. Secondly, for the meaning of that law in Deut 12.3. I vnderſtand it not to forbid abſolutely all naming of falſe gods; ſeing Moſes and the Prophets doe vſually and lawfully name eNumb. 25 3 & 21.29 Iudg 2.13. and 11.24.Baal, peor, Chemoſh, Aſhtaroth & other idols: but ſuch naming, or reteyning of their names, as tendeth any way to the vpholding of their ſuperſtition. Even as on the contrary, by the putting of the true Gods name in any place, Deut. 12.5. is meant the placing of his Religion and ordinances. And as Rabſhakeh honoured not the true God, when he called him by his name fEſai. 36.7 10.Iehovah: ſo neyther did the Prophets honour idols, or ſyn againſt the Law in Deut. 12 3. when they mentioned their names which were ſet vponupon gDeut. 3.29.places, hEſai. 37.38.temples, and iDan. 3.26 & 4.8.9.19perſons of men. So then for your allegation of names mentioned by the Apoſtle; Firſt how prove you that thoſe names, were at firſt given them in any reſpect of honour to the idols of the heathens? If you ſay, the notation of their names ſheweth it: that ſay I is inſufficient. For why may not Hermes in Rom. 16.14. have his name of Hermes Triſmegiſtus the Philoſopher, as wel as of Hermes the God Mercurie? Or, without reſpect of eyther of them, of the notation of the name, an Interpreter? Why ſhould Phaebe in Rom. 16.1. have reference to the heathen Goddeſſe, rather then to the Moon, or to the ſignification of the word, which is Chaſt, or Pure; and which might in that reſpect, be a common name to many women? We finde that Bel or Beel, was the name of an kEſai. 46.1Idol: and in Beel-zebub it is the name of a falſe God, 2. King. 1.2. But when David named his Son l1. Chron. 14.7.Beel-jada; wil you ſay he had reference to any idol: or rather ſimply to the common vſe and ſignification of that word? So for our times, you will not I hope deney but the Papiſts ſyn againſt Exod. 20. and Deut. 12. whiles they make and mainteine images of S. Peter, S. Paul, S. Iames, &c. and erect temples to their honour, and name them S. Peters Church, and the like. Yet when men give their Children civil names, of Peter, Iames, &c. muſt they needs herein communicate with the Papists idolatrie? Or when a man is named George, muſt this name reſpect S. George the old idol of England and if we lived vnderunder Moſes politie, would you ſay men ſynned against Deut. 12.3. in giving ſuch names: yea that whoſoever calleth them by thoſe names which their parents gave them, did break that law in Deut. 12? Wherfore it is yet for you to prove, that Paul in mentioning Phaebe, Hermes, and others by their common knowen names, did contrary to that commandement in Deut. 12.3. if it ſtand in force at this day. Againe, the offices and names of Pope, Abbot, Monck, Frier, &c. are Antichriſtian, and to be baniſhed out of Chriſts Church, (as the name mZeph. 1.4of the Chemarims,) ſo that none of his miniſters may in reſpect of their offices, be named a Pope or an Abbot, a monck or a frier: I hope you wil not deny this. How be it, ſuch miniſters as have their civil names Pope, or Monck, or Abbot or Frier; may lawfully reteine and be called by thoſe names: yea though we were vnderunder Moſes law, which you think is abrogated.

But were it certaine, and ſo granted that thoſe in Rom. 16, &c. had their denomination of heathen Gods: it followeth not, that the law in Deut. 12.3. forbiddeth to mention them by their names: for Daniel was named Belteſhazzar, nDan. 4.8.according to the name of Nebuchadnezars God: yet the Prophet mentioneth this his own name, and the names of oDan. 2 49 & 3.16.23 & 4.19.Shadrach, Meſhach & Abednego, which were likeweiſe idolatrous. So he ſpeaketh to Nebuchadnezar, and to Belſhazzar (named of their Gods pEſai. 46 1Nebo and Bel,) and calleth them by thoſe names, Dan. 2.28. & 3,16 & 5.18.22. Now Daniel who was ſo godly, as he would not break the ceremonial law of Moſes in meat and drink, Dan. 1.8. would not have mentioned thoſe idolatrous names, if that had been the meaning of the law in Deut. 12.3. which you would enforce. So this your 2. reaſon doth not yet prove that law to be abrogated.

Anſwer.

Io. Pa.VNtoUnto my ſecond anſwer touching the names of divers Idolles reteyned in the perſons therevpon denominate in the new Teſtament, as the names of Mercury, Venus, Phaebe, Iupiter, Apollo, Fortuna, &c. your firſt reply is, that then it ſeemeth I hold, that Magiſtrates are neither bound to aboliſh Idols, nor the names of falſe gods out of their dominions, &c. I anſwer.

1. It is not altogather as it ſeemes vntounto you: though I hold that law in Deut. 12. to be abrogate as touching the ſtrict maner and meanes of aboliſhing Idolatry, yet hold I alſo that the equity of the ſame law teacheth Magiſtrates, to aboliſh both names and other monuments of Idolatry ſo far as they are not of neceſſary vſe: my exception in this place was not of the Magiſtrates duety, but of the peoples reteyning of theſe names, oppoſite vntounto your opinion, vvho teach that both Magiſtrates are ſtill bound to deſtroy, and people alſo to forſake thoſe things mentioned in Deut. 12. vvhereas on the contrary I ſhew that the ſaincts and faithfull brethren in the new Teſtament did not forſake but ſtill reteyned and caryed the names of divers Idolles.

2. VVhereas in this firſt reply you obiect the teſtimony of Polydore Virgil, and the example of Pope Sylveſter, ſaying, that I come ſhort of the zeale which, &c. You do here againe make fleſh your arme, as before the fleſh of the Infidel Ievves for your right arme, ſo here the fleſh of blinde Papiſts for your left arme which you ſtretch out againſt me: but 1. as for Polydore know you not that he is a fabulous writer, full of falſhood and forgery? read but thoſe things that go a litle before, or follow after this allegation which you bring from him and you ſhall eaſily diſcerne the ſame; beſides other manifold inſtances that might be brought for proofe hereof: what meane you then to bring ſuch notorious lyars for your witneſſes? yea even in his ſtory of this Pope in particular, he is taxed by aIoh. Bale Pageant of Popes, lib. 1 in Silveſt. 1better hiſtorians as a flatterer of this Sylveſter, as the popes paraſite, &c. 2. As for Sylveſter himſelf, neither do I come ſhort of his zeale, for though I hold that private Chriſtians are not bound now to change their names, (no more then your Sylveſter a member of your Church, though this his name have bene the title of ſundry Popes, that were great Idolles vniverſally adored) yet do I hold that Magiſtrates ſhould aboliſh Idol-names being of no vſe. 3, you have no ſuch cauſe to commend the zeale of this Sylveſter, who though he be ſayd to have changed ſome particular names of the dayes, yet is he therewithall noted to have turned them vntounto an other Idolatrous name of ferie, which the heathens vſed to expreſſe their Idolatrous worſhip and feaſts: feriae, a feriendo victimas: I could wiſh Chriſtian Magiſtrates to go further then he, though in the meane time, I ſee no warrant for you and your people to change the names of dayes and Moneths in your ſpeech and writings as you vſe to doe: in ſuch maner that many do not vnderſtand you.

3. As for the promiſe of God Hoſ. 2.17. to take away the names of Baalim, &c. It was then performed for the ſubſtance of it: when Idol-worſhip was remooved from them; even as on the contrary, the name of God, is ſayd cPſal. 44.20.to be forgotten, when falſe worſhip is ſet vp. God might be true in accompliſhing that promiſe, though the names of perſons were not changed in ſuch maner as in Numb 32.38. Therfore thoſe two places ſhould not be ſo ſtrictly matched togather. Thus alſo is that dPſ. 16.4.propheſie concerning Chriſte to be vnderſtood: viz. that he would not take the names of the Idols into his mouth in any act of honour vntounto them, or in any vnneceſſary vſe. And thus alſo is that exhortation of the Apoſtle Eph. 5.3. to be vnderſtood of vsus.

In the ſecond place you come to ſhew the meaning of that duplicate page duplicate page law Deut. 12.3. & therein, 1. you do needleſly and ſuperfluouſly alledge divers ſcriptures, to prove that all naming of falſe Gods is not abſolutely forbidden; for that is no part of our queſtion, neither have I in any place denyed the ſame. 2. Your interpretation is inſufficient when you do ſo generally and confuſedly tell vsus that ſuch naming or reteyning of their names, as tendeth any way to the vpholding of their ſuperſtition, is forbidden; but do not tell vsus by what reteyning of their names men do vphold their ſuperſtition: whereas in a juſt expoſition you ſhould diſtinctly and particularly have determined, whether the bearing of their names, as Phebe, Mercurie, Fortune, or the like be a meanes to vphold their ſuperſtition; or if not that, what other reteyning of their names.

After theſe generall replyes, you come to ſpeak of ſome of the Idolatrous names reteyned in the new Teſtament: & therein, 1. You do idely and impertinently aſk me, How I prove that thoſe names, were at firſt given them in any reſpect of honour to the Idols of the heathens? For what though the names of vile Idols were not given to that intent vntounto any perſon by his parents, at the firſt, could not thē the reteyning of ſuch names in the time of the law be a tranſgreſſion of that commandement Deut. 12 3 or doth this reſpect of the name-giver alter the law? herein you ſeeme to ſtumble at the ſtone which the Papiſts do ſo often fall vponupon, namely in ſeeking to juſtify their actions by their good reſpects and intents.

2. To your queſtion of Hermes in Rom. 16.14. I anſwer, ſuppoſe he had his name either of Hermes Triſmegiſtus, or of the notation of the name, an Interpreter: yet doth it not therfore ceaſſe to be the name of an Idol: The name of Baal, though given to divers men: and though for the notation thereof it ſignify a Lord or an huſband, and was eEſa. 54.5ſometimes given vntounto God, yet being alſo the name of an Idol, the Lord doth therfore forbid the reteyning thereof, commanding his people to fHoſ. 2.16call him Iſhi, and to call him no more Baali.

3. To your queſtion concerning Phaebe, Rom. 16.1. I anſwer,1. You do in vaine diſtinguiſh between the heathen goddeſſe and the moone: ſeing the moone was that their goddeſſe worſhipped by them. 2, vvhether thoſe that gave this name vntounto Phaebe had reference to the Idol, or to the ſignification of the name, that ſkilles not much to the juſtifying of the action. Actions are to be judged of by the word of God, and not by the reſpects of men. If you ſhould give vntounto your Children the names of Mercurie, Iupiter, Venus, Diana: and excuſe it thus, that you had no reference vntounto the heathniſh Idolles but onelyonly to the ſignification of the names: could your conſcience reſt in this?

4 You ſay, we finde that gEſa. 46.1Bell or Beell was the name of an Idol, and in Beelzebub it is the name of a falſe God, 2. Kin. 1.2. But when David named his ſonne h1. Chron, 14.7.Beel-jada, will you ſay he had reference to any Idol: or rather ſimply to the common vſe and ſignification of that word? I anſwer, 1. you preſume without warrant in ſaying that David named his Sonne Beel iada, we ſee that ſonne hath an other name, to wit, Eliada, 2. Sam. 5.16. and 1. Chron. 3.8. how know you that Beel-jada, was the name that David choſe? 2. The name of Bel and Beel are not properly Hebrew names to ſignify the Idol, but rather Babyloniſh or Syrian words; neither is it Beelzebub, as you write, but Baal-zebub in 2. Kin. 1.2. why ſhould you think that David ſpoke in a ſtrange dialect? 3. Suppoſe the name Beel-jada, had bene given to that ſonne at the firſt, yet ſeing he hath an other name alſo, why might we not thē think, that this was given as a correction of the firſt, as the name of Ierubbaal was afterwards called i2 Sam. 11 21.Ierubbeſheth? 4. If Davids reference to the common ſignification of the word might excuſe him in giving the name of Baal vntounto his children, as you plead, then by the like reaſon he might have given vntounto other of his ſonnes, the names of Dagon, Aſhtaroth, Molech, Nebo, Chemoſh & of other abhominable Idols and have maintayned his fact by his reſpect vntounto the notation of theſe names. And if this reſpect and reference might thus warrant the giving of a name, why might it not warrant the reteyning of an Idols name, by changingthe reſpect? And then what needed the Children of Ruben to have changed the names iNumb. 32 38.of Nebo and Baalmeon, while they might have ſayd, we have no longer reference to the Idols, but to the common vſe and ſignification of theſe words?

5. Having ſpoken of Popiſh ſuperſtition performed to Peter, Paul and Iames, you then aſk: when men give their Children civill names of Peter, Iames, &c, muſt they needs herein communicate with the Papiſts Idolatrie? I anſwer, 1. your note of diſtinction and ſpeech of civil names is vaine: for the names of theſe apoſtles and holy men may as well be called religious names, yea and ought to be vſed for religious ends, ſerving to admoniſh vsus both of the faith, obedience and holy examples of ſuch men that we might imitate the ſame, as alſo of the dueties noted in the ſignification of the names: kCol. 4.6.And ſeing all our ſpeech and words which we name ought to have Religious vſe and to ſerve for aedification: how much more that ſpeciall name whereby we are called? 2. The names of Peter, Iames, Iohn and ſuch like, as they are religious names, ſo are they alſo allowed of God and commended vntounto vsus in the ſcriptures for inſtruction and holy vſe: and therfore though they be abuſed by ſome, yet may they more lawfully be given vntounto Children, then other Idolatrous names which never receyved any ſuch allowance from God. 3, as for other names of men turned into Idols, whereof you alſo ſpeak, if they by the law of Moſes without any ſin, and without exception be given vntounto children: then might the moſt abhominable Idols of the heathen be given and reteyned: ſeing the moſt of their falſe Gods and Idols, as Saturne, Iupiter, Neptune, Hercules, Iſis & Oſyris and the like are generally by the cheefeſt hiſtorians noted to have bene men and women, deifyed, canonized and turned into Gods by the people that worſhipped them and erected temples vntounto them. According to ſuch expoſitions, the law of God might quickly have bene made of no effect.

6. VVhereas you ſay: it is yet for me to prove, that Paul in mentioning Phaebe, Hermes and others by their common knowne names did contrary to that commandement in Deut. 12.3. if it ſtand in force at this day. I anſwer, 1. you pervert the queſtion, as though I had affirmed Paul to have done contrary to the commandement, whereas I ſpake of the reteyning and not aboliſhing thoſe Idol-names in the Saincts which Paul mentioneth: Is there no difference with you betwixt the men reteyning, or bearing an Idol name, for their title: and the mentioning of the ſame by others? Then Nebu-chadnezzar, & Belſhazzar did as lawfully in bearing the names of the Idolles Nebo & Bel: as the Prophet mentioning their titles. 2, if the law in Deut. 12.3. ſtanding in force did not forbid men the reteyning of the names Mercurie, Venus, Iupiter, Phebe, and the like wherein I inſtanced, then did it forbid the vſe of no Idol-names, becauſe none were more vile then theſe: nor ſcarce any maner of reteyning them for the out ward action, more vile then vpō the perſons of the Saincts, the temples of the holy Ghoſt.

7. Againe you obiect that the Antichristian names of Pope, Abbot, Monke, frier, &c. though vnlawfull to be given vntounto men in reſpect of their office, yet miniſters might reteyne them as civill names, though they lived vnderunder Moſes law, &c. Anſ. 1, all that you here ſay, is a bare aſſertion and without proofe, not to be admitted. 2, This diſtinction of civil names (if it be ought worth) reproves your practiſe, that do not reteyne the common and civil vſe of the names, given to the dayes of the week, but chāge the ſame. And why do you commend the needleſſe zeale of Pope Sylveſter in changing thoſe names, when as the civill vſe of them without reſpect vntounto religion, might have ſufficed? 3. If turning Idolatrous names vntounto civill vſe, was a ſufficient warrant not to aboliſh them even vnderunder the law, then what needed that loſſe l1 Deut. 12.2.3. 2. Chron. 14.3. & 17.6 & 31.1. & 34.3, &c.in burning & breaking downe tēples & groves? might not they have bene turned vntounto other proffitable civil vſes? Seing the names & the places were in like maner forbiddē, you may not vſe more indulgence in ſparing one above the other. 4. If the law in Deut. 12. do not condemne the civil vſe of names & places abuſed vntounto Idolatry, thē do you vniuſtly condēne our vſe of tēples, which is for a civil help vntounto vsus as wel as the ſeates & ſtooles that men fit vponupon in the Church, and as well as the ſtaves that old men leane vponupon in comming to the worſhip of God. VVe eſteeme all places a like in reſpect of holynes, vſing theſe onelyonly for civil conveniencie and commoditie. 5. The ſpeciall warrant for the Saincts reteyning thoſe old Idolatrous names in the new Teſtament, is that great benefit purchaſed by the death of Chriſte, who hereby nAct. 10.15. 1 Cor. 10.25.26. Tit. 1.15. Rō. 14.20purifyed for our vſe, thoſe things which vnderunder the law were vncleane and vnlawfull for our vſe; of which benefit more is to be ſpoken hereafter, when I come to anſwer your obiection touching the ſame: where yet vve are alwayes to remember this caution that the creatures & things abuſed vntounto Idolatry, are to be forborne, ſave when there is a neceſſary vſe of them: as in the names of Hermes, Phebe Fortunatus and the like, which being formerly given vntounto private men, could not be changed by them without manifold ſcandalles and diſcommodities, and therfore in that caſe of neceſſary vſe were lawfully reteyned by them. But as for your plea, of reteyning Antichriſtian names, of Pope, Abbot, monke, &c. for civill vſe: it is not to be admitted vnderunder the law any more thē the giving or reteyning the names of Baal-zebub, Baal-peor, Bel, Nebo & the like: no nor yet vnderunder the Goſpel, whē the caſe of neceſſity doth not excuſe them: what Chriſtiā man can without ſcādall give ſuch names as civill, without neceſſity vntounto his childrē? Therfore howſoever you do vniuſtly ſeparate frō the churches of God vpō pretence of their Idolatry; you do now by this plea proceed to a further countenācing of idolatry; then that any godly Chriſtian may follow your ſteppes herein.

Laſtly, whereas you do againe alledge divers places out of Daniel to prove that the law in Deut. 12.3. forbiddeth not to mē tion heathen Gods: you do but trifle, and turne from the queſtion about reteyning or bearing the names of Idolles, vntounto a queſtion about mentioning their names, which I never impugned. Could you have brought any ſound matter againſt the queſtion it ſelf, you would not ſo often have ſlipped from it,even three times in this one ſection. As for the Idolatrous names givē vntounto Daniel and his three frēds, though he might lawfully in his ſtory mention them: yet the law of Charitie bindes vsus to judge, that they bore and reteyned theſe names by conſtraint, being impoſed vponupon them againſt their willes, and that they proteſted againſt them: otherwiſe, how could they have bene innocent?

Section. 3.

Hen. Ainſ.YOur 3. exception is, that the commandement in Deut. 12. is not vniverſal for the place; but expreſſely determined and reſtrayned to the land of Canaan, to the idols of thoſe nations which Iſrael ſhould poſseſſe; from that place they were to be cut of Deut. 12.1.2.3 even as God would have greater ſeveritie againſt the Canaanites, then other idolaters, Deut. 20.10.-15.16.17. Ioſ. 9.6.7. &c.

I anſwer, this your reſtraint to the idols of Canaan onelyonly, as if God would not have other idols deſtroyed alſo, is not according to the intent of the law: for be mentioneth that place, becauſe they were to poſſeſs it: not intending that if they had poſſeſsiō of an other place, they ſhould have let the idols remayne, According to which equitie, Magiſtrates now ſhould deſtroy idols in their own dominions, and not thruſt themſelves into other peoples poſſeſſions to doe the like. And that this is the meaning, I manifest, firſt by an other like law in Lev. 18.3. where they were forbidden to doe after the manner of Egypt wherein they dwelt, and of Canaan whither they ſhould come: theſe lands are mentioned by occaſion of Iſraels dwelling in them: not that God permitted them to folow the cuſtomes of other heathens, but vnderunder theſe two, implied all. Secondly, I ſhew it by other like words in that very law, Deut. 12. as when he ſayth in v. 2. all the places wherin the Nations which ye ſhall poſſeſs ſerved their Gods: here the limitation is as wel in reſpect of the Nations as of the Land. But that God reſpected not the places of thoſe heathens onelyonly, appeareth by the execution of this law: when not onelyonly the places wherin the Canaanites worſhiped falſe Gods, but alſo the places wherein the Iſraelites falſly worſhiped the true God, were deſtroyed: as Ieroboams temples & Altars, & other like, 2 Kin. 23,15.19. Thirdly becauſe not the idols of Canaan onelyonly, but of all other nations, are Devils, Deut. 32.17. 1 Cor. 10.20. and therfore alike abhorred of God, and to be destroyed as abominable to men. Fourthly, becauſe long after the deſtruction of the idols of Canaan, God teacheth his people the like deteſtation and deſtruction of all Idols in general, Eſa. 30.22. Ier. 10.11. and 51.17.18. Zach. 13.2. Ezek. 30.13. Fiftly, the Prophet ſpeaking of the Egyptians, ſayth not onelyonly that God would break their images, but that he would alſo burne the houſes of their gods with fyre, Ier. 43,13. wherfore the law extēdeth not to the Idolies of Canaan onelyonly, as you ſuppoſe. As for Gods greater ſeveritie againſt the Canaanites and other peoples: there was cauſe of difference, in reſpect of the perſons: theſe being come to the aGen. 15.16.fulnes of their iniquitie above other nations; and being Children of the bGen. 9.25curſe, more then other. But betvveen idols and idols, Divils and Divils, there is no ſuch difference, that God ſhould root out ſome, & favour otherſome: no not the idols of his ovvn people, as before is ſhevved; and ſo not the idols of Antichriſt, which are cRev. 9.20devils alſo. And the example of Egypt confirmeth this: for God ſayd. dDeut. 23.7.Thou ſhalt not abhorre an Egyptian; yet the idols and Temples of Egypt he would have burnt with fyre, Ier. 43.13.

Anſwer.

Io. Pa.IN ſetting downe my third anſwer: you do in the firſt place very deceitfully and vniuſtly repeat the ſame: for whereas I according to the queſtion betwixt vsus, noted that the cōmandement for deſtroying idolatrous places vvas expreſſely determined and reſtreyned to the Land of Canaan, to the Idolles of thoſe nations, &c. in ſtead of this, (the commandement in Deut. 12. being both againſt Idolatrous places, and the Idols themſelves) firſt you omit and leave out that mention of Idolatrous places wherevpon I inſiſted in particular, you ſpeak generally of the Commandement in Deut. 12. and afterwards turne it in ſome of your anſwers vntounto the Idolles themſelves, as if God would not have other Idoles destroyed, contrary vntounto my words and meaning: as the reader may ſee in my nPag. 20.former writing. There is a great difference betwixt theſe two ſentences: The commandemēt in Deut. 12. is reſtreyned to the deſtruction off the Idolles of thoſe nations, which I ſayd not: and this, The commandement for deſtroying Idolatrous places is reſtreyned to the Idolles of thoſe nations, &c. which was my anſwer.

In the next place you bring 5. reaſons to prove that there was no ſuch reſtreynt, &c. And firſt, you labour to manifeſt it, by an other like law in Levit. 18.3. where they were forbidden to do after the maner of Egypt wherein they dwelt, & of Canaan whither they ſhould come, &c. I anſwer.

1. Though God have forbidden men to imitate the maner & workes of the Egyptians & other natiōs in their Idolatrous ſervices and other abhominable practiſes, as well as the Idolatries of Canaan: yet doth it not follow hence, that he hath condemned the vſe of the places in all alike. The law in Lev. 18.3. is not in this particular poynt of the place like vntounto that in Deut. 12. This you ſhould have manifeſted, if you could.

2. If vſing the place of falſe worſhippers be a doing after their maner, then are you guilty of following the maner of the Iewes ſeing ſince your ſeparation from M^r. Iohnſon, you have ſometimes had your ordinary publique meetings for the worſhip of God, in the ſame place where they have alſo ordinarily and publiquely exerciſed their abhominable Idolatries and falſe worſhip.

Your ſecond reaſon is taken from other like words in that very law, Deut. 12.2. all the places wherein the Nations which ye ſhall poſſeſs, &c. and the execution of this law in deſtroying the places of Idolatrous Iſraelites, as Ieroboams temples, &c. Anſw. Seing even by your owne confeſſion and words, the limitation is as wel in reſpect of the Nations as of the Land; all reaſon requires, when any commandement is deſcribed in divers words, whereof ſome are more full and ample then others, that then the limitation ſhould be vnderſtood according to thoſe phraſes that are ofgreateſt extent: and conſequently the commandement for the Land of Canaan, conteyning not onelyonly the particular places vvhere the Canaanitiſh nations, but alſo the places where the Idolatrous Iſraelites did worſhip their Idols, might ſerve for a warrant vntounto Ioſias to deſtroy Ieroboams temples being within the Land of Canaan, 2. Kin. 23. But what is this to vsus that are without the, Land of Canaan? The fulleſt and ampleſt phraſe in that commandement Deut. 12. doth not extend vntounto the places which we reteyne in the worſhip of God.

Your third reaſon is, becauſe not the idols of Canaan onelyonly, but of all other nations are Divilles, Deut. 32.17. 1 Cor. 10.20. and therfore alike abhorred of God and to be deſtroyed as abhominable to men. I anſwer.

1. Though Idolles be called Devilles, yet doth it not follow from thence, that the places where they have bene formerly ſerved, may not be converted vntounto the vſe of Chriſtians to worſhip God in the ſame: you bring ſcriptures to prove the antecedent of this reaſon, which you needed not: but for profe of the conſequent you bring nothing, which you ſhould have done: if you would have made your reaſon good.

2. VVe know that Devilles are of oMat. 17.21. & 12.45.ſundry kindes and ſome wicked Spirits are worſe then others: as alſo are the Idolles and the different ſervices of them; and therfore we cannot ſay that they are alike abhorred of God; or that the places where they have bene ſerved are in like manner to be deſtroyed of men.

3. Suppoſe that all Devilles, Idolles and the ſervices of them were in themſelves & in their owne nature equally evill; yet as the circumſtance of the place doth often aggravate the ſin, ſo God having taken and appropriated the Land of Canaan vntounto himſelf to be pLevit. 25.23.24.his Land in a peculiar manner, how can you ſay but that the pollution of this holy Land by Idolatrie, might in this regard deſerve a greater deteſtation of all the monuments, inſtruments and meanes of ſuch pollution?

4. VVe ſee in qMark. 16 9. Luk. 8.2.3Mary Magdalene, that the very ſame breaſt which was firſt a real poſſeſſion of wicked Spirits, a cage of vncleanebirds, and an habitation of Devilles, was afterwards ſanctifyed to be an holy temple and habitation of God by his ſpirit: If the glorious and bleſſed God refuſe not to be worſhipped and dwell in ſuch a Den of Devilles after it is once purged, why ſhould we in this reſpect of former pollution (having no other ſpeciall reſtraint) refuſe to worſhip God in ſuch an habitation of idolles, when as the Idolatrie is remooved, and the place purifyed from the former vncleannes of the Devill?

5. If the worſhip of Devilles make places ſo polluted that no cleanſing will make them fit for the publique ſervice of God, then is that place of your aſſembly vnlawful, where you have taught the doctrine of Devilles; ſeing rMat. 15.9their doctrines are part of their worſhip, even as the doctrines of God are a part of Gods worſhip and ſervice. In ſAnſ. to M^r. Iacob. p. 135, 140 147.your writings againſt the Church of England, to prove that they are departers from the faith, no true Chriſtians, holding fundamentall errours, teaching the doctrines of Devilles: you alledge that that Church forbiddeth mariage, &c. namely, vntounto fellowes of colledges, prentiſes, and to all men and women in Lent, Advent, Rogation week, &c. If this corruption dravv ſuch a heavy Burden vponupon the back of England, then vvill it bring as heavy a Doome vponupon your ovvne heads, vvho teach the Doctrine of devilles by forbidding Mariage in a far vvorſe maner then the Church of England doth, viz. by forbidding your people, all both men and vvomen, to mary vvith the godly members of the Reformed Churches, & this not for any terme of yeares, at any ſet time, but at all times: yea excommunicating ſuch of your people as have ſo maryed with the members of the Dutch Church, ſetting downe this mariage as one cauſe of your giving them to Satan: And in the cordes of this ſin you are ſtill holden, wanting repentance for your evill: for this doctrine of Devilles, which is a part of their worſhip, according to your owne reaſoning, the very place where you have ſo worſhipped is to be deſtroyed, and can never be cleanſed vntounto a lawfull vſe in the worſhip of God.

Your fourth reaſon is, becauſe long after the deſtruction of the Idoles of Canaan, God teacheth his people the like deteſtation and deſtruction of all Idols in generall, Eſa. 30.22. Ier. 10.11. & 51.17.18. Zach. 13.2. Ezek. 30.13. Anſwer. You do here run quite beſide the queſtion: from the Idolatrous places to the Idolles themſelves. And of all the ſcriptures that you here produce, there is not one of them that ſpeakes a word, touching the deſtruction of ſuch places, as have bene abuſed to Idolatry but either of the Idols themſelves or of other vnneceſſary appurtenances belonging vntounto them. VVhen you ſhew by any juſt conſequence of argument, how they ſpeak for you: you ſhall then (godwilling) receyve further anſwer.

Your fift reaſon is, that the Prophet ſpeaking of Egyptians, ſayth not onelyonly that God would break their images, but that he alſo would burne the houſes of their Gods with fyre, Ier 43.13. wherfore the law extendeth not to the Idolies of Canaan onelyonly, &c. I anſwer.

1. Here indeed is ſpeech, not onelyonly of the images, but alſo of their houſes deſtroyed: and this you note ſo plainely and diſtinctly, that I wonder how you could not obſerve it, in your former reaſon, vnleſſe you did willingly winke and purpoſely turne away frō the queſtiō. 2, there is yet in this ſpeech no preſcription or rule to binde vsus to deale in like maner with all other places abuſed to Idolatry: The deſtruction here noted is a judgement of God executed by tIer. 43.10Nebuchadnezzar an Idolater himſelf, that had no conſcience or regard of that commandement, Deut. 12. vvho did alſo by the like judgement of God burne the uIer. 52.13.temple at Ieruſalem, and not onelyonly the houſe of the Lord, but alſo the Kings howſe, and all the howſes of Ieruſalem: So that by ſuch reaſonings as this, from the judgements of God by heathens, you might as well conclude the deſtroying and aboliſhing of private mens houſes for their Idolatry: of palaces and judgements halles: and of Gods owne howſe ſo oft as it was defiled by Idoles.

That which I ſayd for illuſtration of this poynt, in reſpect of greater ſeverity ſhewed vntounto the Idolatours of Canaan themſelves, in their owne perſons, as vvel as in their Idoll-places, is ſo plaine, that in ſtead of refuting the ſame, you go about to confirme the ſame by bringing reaſons thereof from the fullnes of their ſin: and becauſe they were the Children of the curſe more then other. And yet there is a further and higher cauſe thereof, even the hid counſell of God, and the good pleaſure of his will: for others alſo as the Iewes came to vvMat. 23.32-36. with 1. Theſſ. 2.15.16.fullnes of ſin, and became the xMat. 11.21.22.Children of curſe, more then other for their contempt of the Goſpell: yea more then the Canaanites themſelves; for the yGen. 10.15.Sidonians were Canaanites: yet was there no warrant for any therevpon to ſhew ſo great ſeverity againſt their perſons. That which you repeat touching the difference betwixt idols and idols, devils and devils: as alſo touching the deſtruction of the temples of Egypt is already anſwered.

Section 4.

Hen. Ainſ.YOur 4. exception is, ſeing meats ſacrificed to Idols were as much polluted as the places of their worſhip, and yet may now be reteined for our neceſſarie vſe, Pſal. 24.1. with 1. Cor. 10.25.—27. why not the temples alſo, contrary to the ceremonie of old?

I anſwer: The reaſon is becauſe the abſteyning from meats offred to idols, was a ſhadow among other ſhadowes, aCol. 2.16.17.20.21. Heb. 9.10.Touch not, taſt not handle not: but the commandement to deſtroy idolies, was not a ceremonie or ſhadow to be abrogated by Chriſt, as before is ſhewed: but a moral precept and perpetual: and we are now plainly permitted to eat ſuch ſacrificed meat, 1 Cor. 10. and as plainly commanded ſtill to keep our ſelves from idols, 1. Ioh. 5,21. And ſuch are Antichriſts temples, being conſecrated by many popiſh inchantments, vntounto the bPontifical. de benedict. primi lap. pro eccleſia aedific.honour of creatures; to be kept through the interceding merits of all ſaints and by infuſion of grace, to be purified from all pollution: and to be no other then the howſe of God, and the gate of heaven, &c. Now how theſe abominable places, ſhould be by the blood of Chriſt, or by the word & prayer ſanctified to be places for Gods people to worſhip him in; appeareth not by Pſal. 24. compared with 1 Cor. 10. but rather the contrary. For thoſe meats offred to idols, which might be eaten ſold in the ſhambles, or at an infidels private table, might not be eaten in the idols temple: although ſuch as did eat them there, knew that the idol was nothing, and thought it therfore in their Chriſtian tibertie to ſit at table there, 1. Cor. 8.4.10. and 10.19.—22. Neyther am I of your minde, that the meats offred to idols, are as much polluted as the idol or idol temple: for (if we may by the Apoſtles c1. Cor. 10.18.example, compare things with Iſrael after the fleſh,) as the temple of God, was greater then the gold thereof, and the Altar greater then the gift offred theron, being ſanctified (as our ſaviour dMat. 23.16.—19.witneſſeth,) by the temple and Altar: then by like reaſon, theſe idol-temples and altars in them, were worſe then all the offrings, and did pollute the ſacrifices, and not the ſacrifices them. Moreover, in Deut. 12. which is the ſcripture in hand, you finde no ſuch commandement to deſtroy meats or other things offred to idols, as there is for the idols and idolies themſelves: ſo where the law is ſilent, you ſhould not ſpeak. Finally, though it was lawfull to eat Gods good creatures which the gentiles had ſacrificed to idols; yet was it not lawfull (by 1. Cor. 10.) to vſe things for that wherevnto idolaters had in ſpeciall manner conſecrated them: but you vſe theſe Idoleies, for that whervnto idolaters eBellarmin. de cultu ſanct. l. 3. c. 4.conſecrated them: viz. for prayer, and for the words & Sacraments.

Anſwer.

Io. Pa.IN your reply vntounto my fourth anſwer, taken from the lawfull vſe of things ſacrificed to Idolles, though as much polluted as the places where the Idols were ſerved,

Firſt, you do vniuſtly make one of theſe to be a ſhadow and ceremony rather then the other: And the places alledged by your ſelf do ſerve for your refutation. For doth not the Apoſtle Col. 2.21. deſcribe the ceremonies there ſpoken of, as well by thoſe wordes of Touch not, handle not; as by the words of Tast not? And do not men in abſteyning from vncleane places, obſerve the ceremony of Touch not; as well as they do the ceremony of Taſt not, by abſteyning from vncleane meat? when God ordeyned and determined a ceremoniall vncleannes,vponupon the zNumb. 19.14.entring into the houſe of the dead, that men ſhould be vncleane by touching the ground of that place with their feet, as well as by handling the dead body with their hands: this ſhewes that the ceremony of Touch not is to be obſerved & acknowledged in abſteyning from places, as well as in abſteyning from meates. This appeareth further by the aLevit. 13.46. & 12.4 Numb. 5.2.3. Exod. 3.5. & 19.12.commandement of keeping vncleane perſons and that in divers degrees from entring or coming into holy places, and from Touching of them, vvhat aileth you then, that you cannot ſee a ceremony in abſteyning frō the vncleane place of the dead idols, as wel as in abſteyning from the vncleane meate of the dead Idols? And as for Heb. 9.10. doth not the Apoſtle as well mention carnall rites in generall, as abſtinence from meates and drinks in particular? And why is not the ceremony of not touching an vncleane place, as well a carnall rite, as the not touching of an vncleane meate? Againſt this you bring nothing: That which you ſay, you ſhewed before, concerning the deſtroying of Idolies, is before anſwered alſo.

Secondly, whereas you alledge that we are ſtill commanded to keep our ſelves from Idols 1. Ioh. 5.21. & would ſhew withall, that our temples are Idols, being conſecrated by many popiſh inchantments, vntounto the honour of creatures, &c. I anſwer, 1. This kinde of vnlawfull conſecration though it be a greevous ſin, yet doth it not make our temples to be Idols: you do onelyonly give vsus your bare word, but bring no ſhew of ſcripture for proofe of this poynt. 2, vvhen you do bring any ſcripture to this end, you ſhall finde, that the ſame ſcriptures will as well prove meates ſacrificed to Idoles, to be very Idols, as the places cōſecrate vntounto them: and that they will as much condemne the Idololythes, as the Idolies; ſeing that the Idolothytes, or ſacrificed meates are alſo conſecrate by many heathniſh and deviliſh rites vntounto the honour of creatures, as well as the Idolies or temples. 3. If our temples be very Idols, as afterwards againe you ſpeak, then with what conſcience or warrant can you or any of yours frequent the ſame for the worſhip of God, as your maner is bycoming vntounto the library of the great church in this citie where I have divers times found you? vnderunder the worſhip or ſervice of God, according to your owne deſcription, is comprehended, bArrow againſt Idolatry. Chap. 1. ſec. 11.all manner work, labour, induſtry of body or minde to help forward any Religious action; ſo that your ſtudy in the library muſt be acknowledged a worſhip of God, a gnabodah comprehending both dulia & latreia, as you note in the ſame place. Now as it is ſayd of Moloch that there vvere many chambers in that huge Idol: ſo vve ſee that Nebuchadnezzars Idol erected in the plaine of Dura, being cDan. 3.1.threeſcore cubites high and ſix cubites broad in greatnes like vntounto a ſtately and high tovver or ſteeple which might conteyne in it many celles, chambers & roomes (though not ſo great as this Idol which you haunt:) and now according to your preſent practiſe and profeſsion, if there had bene a library in one of thoſe roomes, & if you had lived in thoſe times you would have made no ſcruple to have gone vp into the chambers of that monſtrous Idol, even for the worſhip of God to have ſitten in the celles and ſtudyed in the library thereof. Though Ananias, Azarias and Miſhael did chooſe rather to goe into dIbid. verſ. 6.12.—23.a hote oven, then to do any honour vntounto that beaſt; yet you without feare or ſuſpicion of doing any honour vntounto that fiēd, would willingly in the ſight of all have gone in at the dore or mouth of that Image, couched in ſome hollow tooth, or ſit in ſome great gutte of that Devill (for all Idols are Devilles as you confeſſe) and there have ſtudyed as in the oracle of Apollo. Yea and all this while, you would boldly have maintained your ſeparation from all the churches of Chriſte, as being the one onelyonly miniſter in the earth, free from a polluted communion: while all other are condemned by you as defiled with the filthines of Antichriſtian Idols. O Mr. Ainſworth, ponder with your ſelf what godly wiſedome, modeſty or ſincerity can be in this your ſtrange and contradictory practiſe and profeſsion. If our temples be Devilles and Idolles, devote vntounto deſtruction, and this of God, as you write, how may any Servant of God imitate your example, in ſitting ſo ſecurely inthat place over which the judgement of God and the ſword of his vengeance doth hang continually, none knowing when it ſhall fall? As the Lord of old paſsing through Egipt did ſodainely eExo. 12.12.deſtroy their Idolles, ſo ſtill he fEſa. 19.1. & 46.1.threatens them: & their deſtruction is juſt that vvill tempt God and ſit in the boſome of knowne Idolles: If a ſodaine tumult by men, or a thunder bolt from heaven ſhould come to daſh out the braines of abhominable Idolles, how could you thinke to eſcape ſitting as it were in the middes of the braines, ſtudying in the bookes of this library in the Idol-temple as you take it? Yea, if it were but for any civil buſines, to do the work of any trade whatſoever, what conſcionable man knowing the judgement of God againſt Idolles, that durſt make his ſhop in the belly of ſuch an execrable, anathematized or damned Image? Though you have written a booke, and called it, an Arrow against Idolatry, yet do you not feare, as is meete, the Arrows of God, which he hath made ready vponupon the ſtrings of his Bow againſt the face of every Idol.

Thirdly, where you ſay it doth not appeare by pſ. 24. compared with 1. Cor. 10. how theſe abhominable places ſhould be by the blood of Chriſte, and by the word and prayer ſanctifyed, &c. I anſwer, 1. David in pſ. 24. propheſying of Chriſte, the king of Glory; of the eternall durance of his Church, ſignifyed by the everlaſting dores: of his entrance into and of his adminiſtration of that ſpirituall Kingdome, ſignifyed by the opening of the dores before him, and this according to your owne gAnnot. on pſ. 24.7.expoſition alſo; doth in the beginning of the pſalme ſhew the largenes of his dominiō, over all creatures and places in Sea and land, he being made hHeb. 1.2.heire of all things: If therfore Chriſte be a King vniverſall & a Monarch then may he be worſhipped in every place, els that place ſhould be none of his rightfull dominion: If we alſo be iRom. 8.17.heires with Chriſte of the earth, then may ech place of our inheritance ſerve vsus for a place to worſhip the Lord in. This donation of the earth for our vſe being indefinite, is to be vnderſtood in the largeſt ſenſe for our comfort, while no reſtraint isadded. They that vnwarrantably reſtreyne this gift vntounto a civil vſe onelyonly, they rob both Chriſte and his Servants of a great part of their inheritance. 2, vvhereas you inſiſt, that theſe meates ſacrificed to jdols might not be eaten in the Idols-temple: the Apoſtle ſpeaks according to the preſent eſtate of thoſe temples, while jdolatry vvas ſtill exerciſed in them; vvhile thoſe Idol-feaſts were kept, vvhichwhich vvere a part of their k1. Cor. 10.7 21falſe vvorſhip performed vntounto the Idols: but vvhat is this to the Religious vſe of theſe places purged from Idolatry and imployed in the true vvorſhip of God?

Fourthly, vntounto your comparative reaſon to prove Idol-temples vvorſe then Idol-ſacrifices, becauſe they pollute the ſacrifices and not the ſacrifices them; as on the contrary the temple ſanctifyed the gold, &c. I anſvver. 1, your compariſon is vnequall and vnlike; for the ſanctification of the oblations and ſacrifices depended vponupon one temple and Altar therein: there being no other place to ſanctify their offrings: but the conſecration of theſe meates ſacrificed to Idols did not depend vponupon any one temple or Altar: lHoſ. 12.11.their altars vvere many I as heapes in the furrovves of the field: therfore a different povver for conſecration is to be obſerved. Neither is it true vvhichwhich you ſay that the Idol-ſacrifices did not pollute the places: though the holy ſacrifices could not ſo much ſanctify the altar of the Lord as the altar them Mat. 23. yet might the Idols ſacrifice as much pollute, the Idol-places, as the places them: becauſe in vncleane things there is often a mHag. 2.13.14.ſtronger working to pollute, then there is in holy things to ſanctify. Yet further, that men be not deceyved in the miſvnderſtanding of Chriſts words, Mat. 23.17.19. it is alſo to be conſidered how God would that nLevit. 16 20. Numb. 7.10.88. 1 Kin. 8.63. 2 Chron. 29.21.24.both altar and temple ſhould be ſanctifyed by the offrings, 2, ſuppoſe it were as you ſay, that Idol-places were worſe thē the Idol-ſacrifices: thē mark into what evilles you caſt your ſelf: Then the places where we worſhip are worſe then the Idol-ſacrifice of the Maſſe, worſe then the ſacrificing of a childe vntounto Moloch: and communion in the true worſhip in one oftheſe temples is worſe then communion with the Maſſe or any of thoſe abhominable ſacrificers offred out of the Idol-temples appoynted therevnto: Then how is your apoſtaſy aggravated hereby, when after your ſeparation, you yeelded to worſhip God in one of theſe polluted places, committing a more vncleane ſin then if you had yeelded to heare the Maſſe, or to communicate in any heatheniſh Idolothyte out of the Idol-temple? Then how great is your ſin ſtill, which tolerate among you an Idolater, that dayly worſhippeth God in one of theſe temples? by this kinde of reaſoning, you might as well allow the members of your ſeparate company to heare Maſſe, or to participate with other abhominable Idolatries: Thus do you daſh your feet againſt the ſtones, which you caſt in our way: & cruſh your ſelf in peeces, with your owne reaſons returning vponupon your head.

Fiftly, you ſay, that in Deut. 12. which is the ſcripture in hand, you finde no ſuch Commandement to deſtroy meates or other things offred to Idols, &c. I anſwer, 1. If I finde it for you in other places of ſcripture, though not in that, yet have you no cauſe to accuſe me, for ſpeaking, where the law is ſilent. 2, even the analogie of that place Deut. 12. ſhewes their deſtruction: for if there can be no further vncleannes and pollution ſhewed in the places there appoynted to be deſtroyed, then there is in the Idol-ſacrifices: then doth the equity of that law require that like things ſhould be alike deſtroyed. 3, vve ſee more expreſſely in other places of ſcripture that things dedicate or givē to Idols were to be deſtroyed: as the o2 Kin. 23 11.horſes conſecrate to the Sun which Ioſias aboliſhed: and the Charets of the Sunne, which he burnt with fire. 4, even your ſelf in this ſection confeſſe abſtinence from things offred to Idolles to be a ſhadow or ceremonie, &c. If they muſt be abſteyned from and not eaten thē were they deſtroyed; whether burnt with fire, or given to the Dog, or othervviſe deſtroyed, it ſkilleth not. How then do you forget yourſelf? 5, afterwards againe in the next chapter you plainely argue that heathniſh temples were to be deſtroyed,becauſe they were part of their Religion and Idolatries: which you prove, becauſe Cicero calles them holy and religious: Now I hope you will not deny but that Idolothytes or Idol-ſacrifices were alſo a part of their religion and Idolatrie, that the heathens accounted theſe ſacrifices holy and religious, as well as their temples: and therfore it followes moſt plainely by your owne reaſoning, that they were to be deſtroyed as well as their temples. Thus you ſee there is no cauſe to complayne of me for ſpeaking, where yourſelf are not ſilent.

Finally, you adde, that it was not lawfull (by 1 Cor. 10.) to vſe things for that wherevnto Idolaters had in ſpeciall manner conſecrated them, &c. Anſw. 1. It is ſhewed before from pſ. 24. with 1 Cor. 10. that we may have not onelyonly a civill but alſo a religious vſe of ſuch things notwithſtanding any ſuch conſecration. 2, though Bellarmin ſay, that their temples were conſecrated for prayer, for the word and Sacraments; yet doth it not follow that we vſe them for the ſame things; becauſe our prayers, preaching of the word & Sacraments are not the ſame with theirs; their prayers being Idolatrous invocations of creatures: their ſcriptures, apocryphal: their preachings, heretical; their Sacrament of Euchariſt, an horrible Idol, &c. For theſe things they vvere conſecrated ſome of them: but for theſe ends we vſe them not.

Section. 5.

Hen. Ainſ.To your 5. exception, about the burning of the remnants of the ſacrifices, &c. We doe all agree that thoſe things with the ordinances about them, were ſhadowes, and are aboliſhed by Chriſt: and therfore no conſequence can be gathered for the like outward practiſe now, but onelyonly for the ſpiritual equitie.

Anſwer.

Io. Pa.THough the holy things of God of old, as the remainder of the ſacrifices, were to be aboliſhed vvhen the religious vſe ceaſſed, yet can there no juſt conſequence be gathered for thelike practiſe now in aboliſhing the remainders of bread and wine in the Lords ſupper: Thus much you graunt; and thus far we agree. But whereas in my anſwer vntounto you, I ſhewed further, that God did in like manner command to aboliſh one as well as the other: the high places of Canaan, as the remainders of certaine ſacrifices: to this you ſay nothing. It remaines therfore for you to ſhew, why one of theſe commandements ſhould ſtill be in force rather then the other. If you thinke that one of theſe commandements is a ceremoniall ſhadow rather then the other: though the contrary hath bene already ſhewed before, yet it may further alſo appeare by this, becauſe theſe things, viz. The aboliſhing of holy things after the religious vſe: & the aboliſhing of Idolatrous places after the vncleane vſe, are commandements of like nature both for the action in themſelves, and proportion vntounto things ſignifyed: the one ſhadowing out vntounto vsus a ſpeciall eſtimation of Gods ordinances, as the other ſhadowed out a ſpeciall deteſtation of mens inventions.

Section. 6.

Hen. Ainſ.YOur laſt exception is, that God of old appointed one onelyonly place for ſacrifice, Deut. 12.5.6. Lev. 17.3.4. therfore thoſe high places being for ſacrifice, were to be deſtroyed, &c. but now difference of place is taken away, Ioh. 4.21.

I anſwer: Firſt the law ſpeaketh of aDeut. 12.2.all places wherein the natiōs ſerved their Gods: ſo that though they were not for ſacrifice, but for prayer, or other like vſe, they were to be pulled downe. Secondly though there was to be but one place for ſacrificing, yet foloweth it not that that was the cauſe (at leaſt the onelyonly cauſe) why heatheniſh idols and idoleies ſhould be deſtroyed: but for that they were divils, and divils howſes, and a part of their religion which God abhorreth, and men ſhould deteſt, therfore were they to be demoliſhed, as Moſes ſheweth in Deut. 7.25.26. and Exod. 23.24. And this appeareth by Iakobs practiſe, who bGen. 35.2.3.4.aboliſhed idols and moniments of them, before any one place was choſen: and ſo did cExo. 32.20.Moſes deſtroy the idols in the wildernes, before the Tabernacle was made. In other lands alſo, as dIer. 44.12.13. & 48.7.13. & 50 2. Ezek. 30 13.in Egypt, Moab, Babylon, &c. where no one place was choſen for ſacrifice: yet God would deſtroy the Idols and idol temples, for deteſtation of them. Thirdly, If we look vponupon the thing figured by that one place, it will lead vsus from theſe idol temples now, rather then to them. For principally the Temple of old, figured eIoh. 2.19.21.Chriſt: ſecondarily the f2. Cor. 6.16.Church of Christians. In both reſpects we ſhould avoyd to worſhip God vnderunder the ſhadow of the idols of Antichrist: for the Apoſtle ſayth, g2 Cor. 6.15.16.what concord hath Chriſt with Belial? and (of the Church he ſayth) what agreement hath the temple of God, with idols? So the type of one place, helpeth you nothing. No more will the taking away of the difference of place; which you laſt inſiſt vponupon. For our ſaviours words (in Ioh. 4) ought in reaſon to be expounded according to his Fathers law, not againſt it, even by his own doctrine, Mat. 5.17. So that when idols and idolies are destroyed as God commanded, and the typicall ſanctitie of Ieruſalem is ended: then are all places free to worſhip God in, in ſpirit and trueth. And ſeing Chriſt, to bring in the true ſpiritual worſhip, would not onelyonly end, but even hDan. 9.26.deſtroy the citie & the Sanctuarie, which once were holy: how can we think, that he would have the idolie of the Samaritans ſtand vnderſtroyed: or the abhominations that his enemie Antichriſt ſhould afterwards erect? And the text it ſelf, if it be conſidered, teacheth not otherweiſe. For firſt, it ſheweth that God ſhalbe worſhiped, iIoh 4.21.neyther in the mount of Samaria (where they committed idolatrie) nor in Ieruſalem, (where the typicall worſhip had bene for a time.) Whervpon it followeth, that Antichriſt having erected temples for idols, in imitation of Ieruſalems temple purpoſely in the parts and Shape, as the kBellarm. de cultu ſanct. l. 3. c. 3.Papiſts acknowledge: and conjured them with moe Pope-holy rites, and for moe irreligious vſes, then there were holy rites and vſes of Solomons temple, as is to be ſeen in the Pontifical: we are rather to conclude, that God is not to be worſhiped in them. Secondly, Chriſt there teacheth all men to worſhip God lIoh. 4.23.24.in ſpirit and trueth: which are oppoſed both to the figurative worſhip of the Iewes, and falſe worſhip of the gentiles but Antichriſts temples are a part of the falſe worſhip which he hath forged as the gentiles did of old (as ſhal anone be more fully manifeſted:) therfore Chriſt by thoſe words, rather calleth vsus from them then vntounto them, by his doctrine in Ioh. 4. Thirdly, we cannot in reaſon think, that there ſhould be more indifferencie of place now, then there is indifferencie of other things, ſeing th'Apoſtle ſayth mTit. 1.15vntounto the pure all things are pure: vvhervpon you may as wel conclude a lawfull vſe of popiſh garments, images, and other things of his religion, as of his idol places. And ſo the miniſter may weare a cope, miter, ſurplice, &c. in his miniſtration (vvhichwhich the Pope appointed in imitation of the Levitical preistly garments) as vvel as miniſter in a popiſh ſanctuarie; and all other his abominable rites, may be reteined of vsus Chriſtians in our Churches, by as good reaſon as the temples of his ahomination. Which is as contrary to Chriſts intendement in Ioh. 4. as darknes is to light. And thus Deut. 12.2.3. compared with Exod. 20.4.5 6. is of force to throw downe idols and idol temples, notwithſtanding all that you have ſayd to vphold them. And according to your manner of pleading for idolies, the Corinthians, (vvhom Paul convinced of ſyn for eating in the idolie, n1. Cor. 10 18.by an argument of Iſraels practiſe) might aſo have pleaded, that thoſe things concerned Iſrael vvhichwhich vvere a ſpecial people ſeparated from all other, and they were bound to eat of the ſacrifices before Gods ſanctuarie onelyonly, one peculiar place: but now, the earth is the Lords and the plentie therof, all places are alike, all idols are nothing, & were by them ſo knowen & estemed. And even as you plead againſt Deut. 12. vvhichwhich is an explanation of the 2. Commandement: ſo oBellarm. de Imagin. l. 2. c. 7.ſome Papiſts have alſo pleaded againſt the 2. commandement it ſelf, that it vvas a temporal precept, and that now vnderunder the nevv Testament images are lavvfull.

Anſwer.

Io. Pa.MY laſt anſwer to your firſt reaſon, was this, that there is not the like reaſō to aboliſh the buildings abuſed vntounto Idolatry now, as the high places of old, becauſe God having then appoynted one onelyonly place for ſacrifice, Deut. 12.5.6, &c. Lev. 17.3.4. Thoſe high places being for ſacrifice vvere to be deſtroyed, though no Idolatry had bene committed in them; but being polluted vvith the ſervice of Idols, there vvas then double cauſe of their deſtruction, vvhichwhich is not novv in theſe, vvhile difference of place is taken avvay, Ioh. 4.21.

Your firſt reply vntounto this, is: that the lavv ſpeaketh of all places vvherein the nations ſerved their Gods: ſo that though they vvere not for ſacrifice, but for prayer, or other like vſe, they vvere to be pulled dovvne. I anſwer againe, 1. though Moſes ſpeak generally of ſerving their Gods, yet this ſhewes not that they had any place of solemne worſhip, wherein they did not ſacrifice alſo: The high mountaines, hilles, and greene trees, whereof Moſes ſpeakes were the ordinary places, where they did ſacrifice as appeares throughout the p2. Kin. 17.8.—11. & 1 Kin. 22.43. Eſa. 57.5.6.7. Ier. 3.6. with 17.2.3. Ezek. 6.13. & 20.28. Hoſ. 4.13.ſcriptures: And the Iſraelites following the manners of the heathens herein alſo, did offer ſacrifices in their owne private q2. Kin. 23.12. Ier. 19.13. Zeph. 1.5.houſes vntounto the hoſte of heaven and vntounto other falſe Gods. 2. Even you yourſelf have not brought any one inſtance or ſhew of proofe to manifeſt vntounto vsus, that theſe Idolatours had any ſet places of worſhip either publique or private, wherein they did not ſacrifice as well as they prayed or performed any other ſervice. And what weight is there then in a meere coniecture and ſuppoſition, againſt a common and generall practiſe deſcribed vntounto vsus by the teſtimony of holy writte?

Your ſecond reply is, that though there was to be but one place for ſacrificing, yet foloweth it not that that was the cauſe, (at leaſt the onelyonly cauſe) why heathniſh idols and idoleies ſhould be deſtroyed, but for that they were divils and divils bouſes, &c. I anſwer, 1. I ſayd not, that the commandement for one place of ſacrifice, was the onelyonly cauſe why Idol-places ſhould be deſtroyed; your denyall thereof is idle and beſide the matter; and tends to deceive your reader, in making him to think that I had affirmed the ſame. 2, that the commandement of a peculiar ſet place of ſacrifice was one cauſe it may appeare by the coherence of the text and by the oppoſition betwixt the actions ſpecifyed in Deut. 12. for whereas the deſtruction of the Idolatrous places is commanded verſ. 2.3.4. the vſing of one place alone which God ſhould chooſe to put his name there, is alſo immediately taught & appoyntedin the ſame place, and in the verſ. 5. next following 3, as for their being devils houſes, which you alledge as the cauſe of their deſtruction, that is without warrant, as hath bene ſhewed before: and may further appeare by this: becauſe then every private Idolaters howſe, yea and every obſtinate ſinners houſe ſhould be deſtroyed, and be vnlawfull for vſe, ſeing all ſuch perſons are called rIoh. 6.70. & 8.44. Act. 13.10.devilles and Children of the devill and therfore their howſes, devilles howſes. 4, thoſe two places of ſcripture Exod. 23.24. Deut. 7.25.26. are in a double regard miſalledged by you, for firſt they ſpeak not a word for the aboliſhing of Idolatrous places, which is the queſtion: but onelyonly of the Idols themſelves; and ſecondly, if they did ſpeak of aboliſhing the places, yet doth it not thēce appeare, that it ſhould be vponupon this ground, becauſe they are devilles howſes, which is the poynt, that in this place remaines to be proved of you. 5, As for Iaakobs practiſe, Gen. 34.2.3.4. there is nothing ſayd touching the deſtruction of any place defiled by Idolatrie, but of other things of leſſe neceſſary vſe, of which more is to be ſpokē hereafter, where that ſcripture is againe alledged by you. And what meane you to tell vsus of Moſes deſtroying the Idol, or golde Calfe Exo. 32.20. as though there were no difference betwixt an Idol and the place where it ſtood? How often do you turne away from the queſtion of the place, to an other queſtion touching images themſelves? 6. As for the deſtruction of Idols and Idol-temples in other lands alſo as Egypt, Moab, Babylon, &c. where no one place was choſen for ſacrifice: touching that which was done in Egypt, Ier. 43.12.13, and Ezek. 30.13. you have bene anſwered already in the third ſection going before: And yet further you may obſerve this, that if the fact of Nebuchadnezzar in deſtroying Idolatrous countries and houſes may thus be alledged as a rule to be followed of neceſſitie, you may as well plead that the houſes of other ſinners are to be deſtroyed and not to be dwelt in, becauſe of his and other princes decrees to ſDan. 3.29 Ezra, 6.11.pluck downe and deface them for blaſphemy, hindring the building of temple, &c. Then ought you not to have vſed thatplace which the blaſphemous Iewes had once poſſeſſed and inhabited before you. Touching Moab & Babylon, Ier. 48.7.13. & 50,2. The prophet ſayth nothing there touching the places themſelves, but onelyonly for the Idols Chemoſh, Bel, Merodach: of which our queſtion is not. And in ſumme touching all theſe nations togather, though no one place was choſen in them for ſacrifice; yet ſeing one place was choſen then in Ieruſalem for all the godly in the world to ſacrifice in, and no other allowed for ſacrifice in any of theſe nations: even in this reſpect alſo the vſe of ſuch places, were double vnlawfull at that time, once for their ſacrifices, and againe for their Idol-ſacrifice.

Your third reply is, that if we look vponupon the thing figured by that one place, it will lead vsus from theſe Idol-temples now, rather then to them, &c. But I anſwer, though Chriſt and his Church were figured by the temple of old: though Chriſt have no concord with Belial, nor his Church any agreement with Idols, as you alledge from 2 Cor. 6.15.16. yet what is this to the vſe of thoſe temples from whence Belial and the Idols are caſt out? Though a Legion of devilles have dwelt in any living temple or other place, yet when they are caſt out and diſpoſſeſſed, cannot Chriſt enter in and dwell there, vnleſs he hold a concord and agreement with them? That no agreement is to be had with Belial and Idols, we graunt willingly, but that the worſhip of God in the places whence they are caſt out is an agreement with them, we deny: for proofe of this, which is the poynt, you have ſayd nothing at all.

In the next place you reply divers things alſo touching the difference of place which is now taken away Iohn. 4.21. You ſay, Seing Chriſt, to bring in the true ſpirituall worſhip, would not onelyonly end, but even tDan. 9.26deſtroy the citie and the ſanctuarie, how can we think, that he would have the idolie of the Samaritans stand vndeſtroyed; or the abominations that his enimie Antichriſt ſhould afterwards erect? I anſwer, 1. For that place, Dan. 9.26. though the Angel Gabriel there ſhew that the ſanctuary ſhould be deſtroyed, yet doth he not ſhew that it was vnlawfull for Chriſtians afterwardsto have met togather for the ſpirituall worſhip of God in the ſame place: And therfore that kinde of deſtruction is nothing to the purpoſe, being nothing like vntounto that which you plead for, even to the remooving of the lawfull publique worſhip of God, for ever out of the place defiled by Idol-ſervice. 2, as Gabriel foretels the deſtruction of the ſanctuary, ſo in the very ſame verſe he foretelles the ſlaughter of the Meſsias: both theſe were to be done by the providence of God, according to the determinate counſell of his will; neither of them according to his law by any warrant of his word, but both of them by the authoritie of the cruell and wicked Romanes, which both deſtroyed the temple and ſlew Chriſte: Their fact in deſtroying the temple was abominable, even tDan. 9.27 with Mat. 24.15. & Luk. 21.20.the abomination of deſolation: ſo that if you have no better arguments for throwing downe our temples, then this example; your deſtruction of them ſhall be but an abhominable deſolation, without any warrant of Gods word. 3, The Angel in this place doth ſhew the vvill of God as well for the deſtruction of the citie it ſelf as of the ſanctuary: ſo that for ought in this place, you might as well have collected and concluded the deſtruction of Idolatrous cities and the private houſes of Idolaters, as the deſtruction of the temples abuſed vntounto Idolatrie.

But for the confirmation of your opinion, you plead further from that text Ioh. 4.21. and ſay, Firſt, it ſheweth that God ſhalbe worſhiped, neither in the mount of Samaria (where they committed Idolatry) nor in Ieruſalem, (where the typical worſhip had bene for a time.) wherevpon it followeth, that Antichriſt having erected temples for Idols, in imitation of Ieruſalems temple purpoſely in the parts and ſhape as the Papiſts acknowledge, &c. we are rather to conclude that God is not to be worſhiped in them. I anſwer, 1. The denyall of worſhip in the mount of Samaria and Ieruſalem, is not abſolute, but the meaning is that men ſhould not be tyed to thoſe places; and therfore Chriſt oppoſeth not any other locall place vntounto thoſe two, but onelyonly oppoſeth the maner of worſhip in ſpirit and truth, which might be now in any u1 Tim. 2.8.places without exception. 2, Though our temples had bene made liker vntounto the temple in Ieruſalem then they are: yet doth it not folow that it is vnlawfull to worſhip God in them: for proofe of this conſequence you bring nothing: And as for the conſecration of them and your teſtimony of Bellarmine, they are to be examined in the next Chapter, where you repeate the ſame at large.

Secondly, you plead from Ioh. 4.23.24. that Chriſt there teacheth all men to worſhip God in ſpirit & truth: which are oppoſed both to figurative worſhip and falſe worſhip, &c. I anſwer, though Antichriſts temples in his vſe of them are a part of his falſe worſhip: yet doth not that pollute vsus in our vſe of our owne temples, being quite contrary vntounto his. The Iewes temple wherein you worſhipped God after them, was in their vſe of it a part of their falſe worſhip, (as is anone more fully to be manifeſted,) was your vſe of it therfore condemned by Ioh. 4?

Thirdly, you plead, that we cannot in reaſon think, that there ſhould be more indifferencie of place novv, then there is of other things, &c. I anſwer, that we are to diſtinguiſh betwixt things of neceſſary vſe and other trifles: A place for the worſhip of God is of neceſſary vſe: and thoſe which we have are of great conveniency for vsus, being civil helpes in the ſervice of God: & therfore we vſe them with good conſcience, ſeing all things are pure vntounto the pure, Tit. 1.15. But as for cope, mitre, ſurplice, and ſuch like we do juſtly refuſe and reiect them, being vaine inventions that are of no neceſſary vſe at all in the ſervice of God.

VVhereas you ſay further, that according to my manner of pleading for Idolies, the Corinthians (vvhom Paul convinced of ſin for eating in the idolie, by an argument of Iſraels practiſe) might alſo have pleaded, that thoſe things concerned Iſrael vvhichwhich vvere a ſpecial people, &c. I anſwer, that you compare things together very groſly: for Paul convinced the Corinthians of ſin for eating in the Idol-houſe with the Idolaters, at that time and place when they did inſtantly committ Idolatrie, thoſe Idol-feaſts being a part of their worſhip, as hath bene ſhewed before from 1 Cor. 10.7.21. but you in vaine ſeek to convince vsus of ſin for the lawfull worſhip of God in thoſe places from whence the Idols and Idolatry are remooved: Now I pray you, what proportion or ſimilitude is there betwixt theſe two things: viz. Communion in the true worſhip of God with the faithfull in a place purged from Idolatrie; which is our caſe: & Communion in an Idol-feaſt an Idolatrous worſhip, this with heathniſh Infidelles, even in the place where the Idolles ſtood, and were preſently worſhipped; which was the caſe of the Corinthians? Let him that readeth judge, whether the Corinthians could make the like plea for themſelves that we do.

Finally as for your comparing of our defence vntounto the plea of ſome Papiſts in expounding the ſecond commandement itſelf to be a temporall precept, which opinion of Catharinus even Bellarmine himſelf refuted in the place alledged by you: I anſwer, that any lew might as lawfully tell you the ſame, and ſay vntounto you, even as you hold and plead for the abrogating of the ſacrifices and ceremonies of the law: ſo ſome Papiſts have alſo pleaded against the ſecond commandement itſelf, that it was a temporall precept: If his compariſon ſhould be vniuſt againſt you: ſo is yours againſt vsus.

Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Chapter 7

p. 130CHAP. VII. Of temples: The firſt argument, examined.

Section, 1.

Anſwer.

Section 2.

Anſwer.

Section. 3.

Anſwer.

Section 4.

Anſwer.

Section. 5.

Anſwer.

Section. 6.

Anſwer.

CHAP. VII. Of temples: The firſt argument, examined.