Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. The third reaſon concerning temples, examined:
Hen. Ainſ.OVr 3. reaſon againſt them is, Becauſe the conſecrating of any garments, places, or the like, peculiarly to the worſhip of God now in the time of the Goſpel, hath no warrant in the word of God.
You grant this; but yet deny that for the errour of their conſecration in former time they muſt therfore of neceſsitie be aboliſhed now.
Seing you grant this, then it foloweth, they are vaine and Idolatrous, Mat. 15.9. Coloſ. 2.22.23. then are they a part of Antichriſts abominations, and by your grant of our former reaſon, are to be conſumed with him: then are they to be ſhunned of Chriſtians, 1. Ioh. 5.21. and not to be imployed by them, vntounto that vſe for which Antichriſt conſecrated them, but to be aboliſhed aRom. 13.3.4.by the Magiſtrate. And by ſuch a pretext as you now make, the Corinthians might have pleaded for their ſyn, who b1 Cor. 8. and 10. ch.did eat in the Idols temple, that the gentiles error in conſecrating it before, could not hinder their libertie, who knew that the Idol was nothing, and the conſecrating of the temple was of no force. Your anſwer alſo ſerveth as wel, for wearing a Miter, a cope, a cornerd cap, a Preiſts cloke, a ſurplice, &c. the errour in conſecrating theſe, is no more then in the temples, if it be ſo much. But in deed you nouriſh the errour of their conſecration, whiles you vſe them for that vntounto which they were conſecrate, ſo occaſioning the ſimple people, to eſteme them holy places ſtill: and you give Papiſts occaſion to reproch, who boast how their cPapiſts ſupplic. to the K. An̄o 1604. Art. 6.Religion builded all the Churches, &c. and that your religion could not without ſuch their Churches, proviſion and ordinances, ever have caried the exterior ſhew it doeth. And ſo being a means to harden them in evil, your practiſe is an occaſion of offenſe, contrary to the Commandement of God, in 1. Cor. 10.32.33. And if they can get their temples out of your hands (as they have doen in ſome townes of theſe countries) you ſhall plainely ſee that the errour of their conſecration continueth as a fretting Leproſie vponupon the walls of theſe temples: and even now whiles they are in your hands, they are viſited and prayed in by Papiſts, as holy conſecrated places: yea even by thouſands which are not profeſſed Papiſts, as is to be ſeen throughout the Pariſhes of England. So great is the iniquitie of their inchanted conſecration, which yet remaineth.
Anſwer.
Io. Pa.SEing no places now in the time of the Goſpell are to be peculiarly conſecrate vntounto the worſhip of God, it followes therfore from hence, that thoſe who do ſo cōſecrate them, and put holynes in them and teach others to do ſo, that ſuch (I ſay) do offend againſt the Scriptures, Mat. 15.9. Col. 2.22.23. But that we alſo offend, which on the quite contrary do condemne ſuch doctrines and precepts of men, and teach that all places are alike holy and lawfull for the ſervice of God; this conſequence you will not prove in haſt. VVhen you prove that thoſe Tēples are properly Idolles in our vſe of them, then I wil grant that all godly perſons ought to ſhun them according to 1. Ioh. 5.21. and not to communicate with vsus in them, and that the Magiſtrate alſo is bound to correct this errour, according to Rom. 13.3.4. But if there be any ſuperſtitious perſons that put more holynes in them then they ought, though ſuch in a large ſenſe and metaphorically may be called Idolaters, and be ſayd to make Idols of them, yet this ſin of theirs is not enough to prove that they ought to be aboliſhed: even as the covetous perſons that put their truſt in their riches, and labours and ſay vntounto the wedge of Gold, Thow art my hope; may iuſtly be called bEph. 5.5. Col. 3.5. with Hab. 1.16. and Iob. 31.24Idolaters, & their goods their Idols or gods, yet doth it not follow hence that theſe goods ſo truſted in are to be caſt away or deſtroyed, but onelyonly to be cLuk 16.9 & 19.8.vſed better and to be ſanctifyed by the word of God. You do here alſo vniuſtly confound Idolatrous places with Idols them ſelves; contrary to ſome of yourſelves who in that peece of paper which is printed in the margēt of H. Barow his dDiſcov. p. 133.book for a correction of the ſame, do there plainely diſtinguiſh betwixt the Synagogs dedicated to Idolatry & defiled with Idols; and betwixt Idols which had a worſhip given vntounto them; though that note have other errour amexed vntounto it, yet for the diſtinctiō it ſelf you are further from the truth which it acknowledgeth.
That which you ſay of the Corinthians eating in the Idols temple, 1. Cor. 8. & 10. chap. that they by ſuch a pretext as I make, might have pleaded for their ſin, &c. is far otherwiſe: Had they vſed the Idol-temple onelyonly to the lawfull worſhip of God, after all exerciſe of Idolatry had bene baniſhed out of the ſame, then ſhould not the gentiles errour in conſecrating it before, have polluted them: And this is our plea, for our vſe of temples at this time. But what could this excuſe the Corinthians communicating with the Infidels & Idolatours, in the very act of their preſent falſe worſhip, in their Idol-feaſts and ſacrifices, while their Idolatrous exerciſes were ſtill in full force with them? VVhat a huge diſtance is there betwixt theſe two caſes? VVhat Spirit of diſcerning have you, that can not or will not put difference betwixt communion with Papiſts, in the maſſe, in eating of their breaden God, in their Idol temple, which is like the practiſe of the Corinthes; and betwixt communion with true Chriſtians, in true worſhip, in the place purged from Idols and falſe worſhip, which is our practiſe?
VVhereas you obiect further, that my anſwer ſerveth as well for wearing a miter, a cope, &c. And that I do indeed hereby nouriſh the errour of their conſecrating, &c. I anſwer, 1. the miter, cope, ſurplice and ſuch like never had nor can have a neceſſary vſe in the ſervice of God, nor be any civil helpes in the ſame, vntounto ſuch as have other clothes to put on their backes: but a place & houſe to meet in for the ſervice of God is a neceſſary circumſtance that cannot be miſſed as hath bene ſhewed before: ſo that there being ſuch difference betwixt theſe two things, if ſimple people or Papiſts be offended at that, which is of ſuchvſe, their offence is vponupon their owne heads onelyonly. 2, Conſider alſo that ſimple people by your vſe of the Churchyards are occaſioned to eſteeme them holy places ſtill: The Papiſts may with like reaſon that they vſed in their ſupplication to the King boaſt that their Religion hath given and conſecrated the Churchyards as well as the Churches: And your practiſe of buriall in theſe places, being that end wherevnto they were conſecrated of Papiſts, is as much an occaſion of offence, and reproch vntounto them; doth as much harden them in their errour: and is as much againſt that Commandement 1 Cor. 10.32.33. as is our vſe of the Churches or temples: and if you do not defend your practiſe by the neceſſary vſe which you have of them, you will ly vnderunder that guilt which you would ſo faine lay vponupon vsus: where neceſſity excuſeth not, the guilt of offences and ſcandalles doth come vponupon men as wel by civil as religious actions. And further according to your obiection, conſider that if the Papiſt can get their conſecrated Churchyards, now vſed by you, into their hands againe (as they have already done in ſome townes of theſe countries) you ſhall plainely ſee that the errour of their conſecration continueth with them: and even now whiles you do bury your dead in them, they are viſited and prayed in by Papiſts, as holy conſecrated places, &c. And if any difference be, they are like to be offended rather at the buriall in the Churchyards and Churches, then at the worſhipping in them, in as much as they are more ſuperſtitious about the buriall then other ſervices, holding it more lawfull to pray and ſerve God in other places, then to bury in other places. Thus you may ſee, that if there be any force in this your reaſoning, it is all againſt yourſelf.