Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Chapter 10
CHAP. X. The fourth reaſon concerning temples, examined:
Hen. Ainſ.OVr 4th. reaſon you anſwer not, but alter it. We ſayd, the worſhiping of God in the places, &c. hallowed by himſelf, was a part of his honour, Deut. 12.5.6. Lev. 17.3 4, & this you grant. So on the contrary, (ſay we) the worſhiping of God now, in the places, &c. hallowed by Antichriſt, is a part of popiſh devotion. You anſwer, Though it be a part of popiſh devotion, to hallow places for Gods worſhip, &c. yet God requires not the plucking down of them. Thus you ſhun the edge of our argument, who ſpake not here of their hallowing, but of the peoples worſhiping in the places hallowed which being popiſh devotion, & ſo farr forth an honour vntounto Antichriſt, it muſt needs be ſyn. So in altering the caſe, you turne your eyes from your own ſyn in worſhiping, to the popes ſyn in hallowing. The Apoſtle to convince the Corinthians, ſheweth that the Iſraelites by eating of the ſacrifices were a1. Cor. 10.18.pertakers of the altar: ſo they, by eating of the heatheniſh ſacrifices, were pertakers of their altar. The ſame may be ſayd of the Temple, that the Iſraelites coming thither to b1. King. 8.33.pray communicated with Gods honour therin: ſo they that goe to the heathens or Antichristians Temples to pray, communicate alſo with Antichriſts honour; though men deſpiſe Antichriſts idols in word now, as the Corinthians did the heathens idols then.
When againe we compare things thus: As the deſtroying of Gods Temple tended to his diſhonour. Pſal. 79. & the building therof, to the eſtabliſhing of his worſhip, Hag. 1. ſo the raſing of Antichriſts Temples, would be to his diſhonour; & the contrary is in vſing, building & repayring them. To this you give no anſwer, but ſay: It doth not follow that God now requires the plucking down of the (temples)▪ ſeing there is a change of the Law, Heb. 7.12. Wheras if you conſidered the weight of our reaſon, it muſt needs folow: for God would have Antichriſt to be diſhonoured, and c2 Theſ. 2 Rev. 13. & 18. chapnot honoured or mainteyned in any part of his curſed devotion: and ſuch our argument ſheweth the raſing or repayring of his temples to be. The ſcripture which you cite, ſerveth nothing for your purpoſe. In Heb. 7.12. the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the preiſthood, the Levitical miniſterie: which being changed & abrogate, there muſt of neceſsitie be a change alſo of the Law: ſo their ministration ceaſeth, & Chriſt our onelyonly Preiſt, performeth the work of our reconciliation to God. But we ſpeak of the Magiſtracie, whoſe office yet remaineth and is not abrogated by Chriſt, but by his doctrine eſtabliſhed in Rom. 13. and elſwhere. So that the Magiſtrate is dRom. 13.4.the Miniſter of God stil, (which the legal Preiſt is not,) and hath the ſword to cut of all ſynns, wherof popiſh ſuperſtition is not the leaſt: & with this ſword and office, Chriſt eIoh. 18.36.medled not: therfore you cannot in this reſpect without errour ſay, there is a chāge of the Law. But the trueth is, ſeing the Magiſtrate continueth, ther is a continuance alſo of the Law: for how elſe ſhall he doe the work of a Miniſter of God, if he have no law of God to direct him? for the other ſcriptures in our reaſon alleged, Deut. 12. 2 King 10. & 14. & 23. You ſay they are already anſwered: and vntounto your anſwers, I have alſo replied before.
Anſwer.
Io. Pa.THe complaint which here you make of my not anſwering but altering and ſhunning the edge of your argument, &c. is vaine and vniuſt. Your argument is like vntounto an overworne knife, whoſe edge is ſo blunt, that a man cannot eaſily diſcerne the edge from the back of it, nor finde where the force of it lyes: ſo litle cauſe there is to ſhun the ſame for feare of cutting or wounding. You ſay that you ſpake not here of hallowing, but of the peoples worſhiping in the places hallowing: but do you not here ſtill vtter a ſpeech implying a contradiction in it? for what ſenſe or colour of reaſon is there here againſt the peoples worſhiping except it be in reſpect of the places hallowed? do you not alſo in the beginning of this Chapter twiſe together make mention of hallowing when you repeat your argument, and tell vsus that you ſayd thus: The worſhiping of God in the places, &c. hallowed by himſelf was a part of his honour. So on the contrary, the worſhiping of God now in the places, &c. hallowed by Antichriſt, is a part of popiſh devotion? Againe, in my anſwer alſo I did not onelyonly mention hallowing, but alſo which you omit, I mentioned, eſee before Pag. 22.putting of religion in places hallowed, & vnderunder that I comprehended ſuch kind of vnlawfull worſhip as the Papiſts vſe, & yet ſtill denyed the conſequence of your argument, againſt ſuch vſe as we have of them, when as I ſayd, yet followes it not that God requires the plucking downe of ſuch places.
But let vsus further examine, whether now vponupon the ſecond whetting, and putting of more ſtrength to it, your blunt Axe have got a ſharper edge to hew downe our temples. You alledge the conviction of the Corinthians for eating of heathniſh ſacrifices from 1 Cor. 10.18. but that plea is already twiſe anſwered: that place ſpeakes of communion with f1 Cor. 10.17.21.Idolaters in falſe worſhip, and not of vſing the place onelyonly, in a lawfull worſhip of God. You alledge 1. Kin. 10.33. to ſhew, that the Iſraelites coming to the temple to pray communicated with Gods honour therein, &c. But I anſwer, that Solomon there ſpeakes of true worſhip in the temple: otherwiſe thoſe that came to the temple to pray and worſhip with Idolaters, as in the dayes of g2. Kin. 21 4.5.7.Manaſſes, and hEzek. 8.3.16. Ier. 32.34.afterwards when the houſe of God was filled with Idols, did not communicate with Gods honour hereby, but with the honour of Devilles & ſo on the cōtrary to make the oppoſition juſt & equall, thoſe that go to pray in the temples of Antichriſtians, when as the Idolatry of Antichriſt is purged out and remooved thence, and do onelyonly vſe the worſhip appoynted of God, praying and fighting dayly againſt Antichriſt with the ſword of the ſpirit, ſuch do not herein communicate with Antichriſts honour, but with the honour of Chriſte.
Againe, as if your compariſon were an argument with two edges, you ſay that you alſo compare things thus; As the deſtroying of Gods temple tended to his diſhonour pſ. 79, &c. ſo the raſing of Antichriſts temples would be to his diſhonour, &c. The ſequele of this argument for the neceſſity of plucking downe our temples, I denyed, becauſe there is a change of the law, Heb. 7.12. This you call no anſwer, &c. I anſwer you againe more plainely and fully, 1. Though God would have Antichriſte to be diſhonoured: and though the raſing of his temples would in ſome regard be a diſhonour vntounto him: yet are not we bound vntounto all meanes, nor yet vntounto this particular meanes and maner of diſhonouring him by deſtruction of his temples: even as God would have Idolaters to be diſhonoured, and the iDeut. 13.15.16.deſtroying of their goods and cartell, their city and their habitation would be to their diſhonour: yet doth it not follow, that we are now bound vntounto this meanes and maner of diſhonouring them, as hath bene ſhevved before, becauſe there is a change of the law. God would have blaſphemers to be diſhonoured; and the kDan. 3.29.plucking downe of their houſes, vvould be to their diſhonour: yet doth it not follovv that vve are novv bound vntounto this particular maner of diſhonouring them. 2. VVhereas you do alledge three Chapters at randon and at large, viz. 2 Theſ 2. Rev. 13. and 18. to ſhevv that God vvould have Antichriſt diſhonoured; and not honoured, &c. you do but beat the ayre in vaine, vnleſs you could have inferred thēce that our not honouring of him could not ſtand vvithout plucking dovvne his temples. 3. Touching the change of the lavv, Heb. 7.12. you ſay the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the Prieſthood and leviticall miniſterie, &c. but we ſpeak of the Magiſtracie, whoſe office remaineth, &c. But if you did ſeriouſly conſider what you ſay, you might eaſily diſcerne the truth that I ſhewed you. For though the office of Magiſtracie continueth according to Rom. 13. yet if the Prieſthood and leviticall miniſtery be abrogate, then is a great part of the Magiſtrates charge abrogate alſo: ſeing the Magiſtrates before Chriſt were lExo. 12.15. Lev. 17.4.14. Numb. 1.51. & 3.38. & 18.7. Deut. 17.12. with pſ. 101.8.bound to ſee the Prieſthood and ceremoniall ordinances belonging vntounto the ſame, mainteyned: and to execute judgements vponupon the violatours thereof: Thoſe ceremoniall ordinances ceaſſing, the care and charge of the Magiſtrate about the ſame, ceaſſeth alſo. And ſo the commandement of deſtroying places abuſed vntounto Idolatrie,being one of thoſe ceremoniall ordinances, Touch not, handle not Col. 2 as is ſhewed before: though the office and authority of the Magiſtrates continueth for the maintenance of the decague or morall law: yet this ceremony concerning obſervation of places being changed, the authority of the Magiſtrate is therein changed alſo. 4. your allegation of Ioh. 18.36. to ſhew that Chriſt medled not with the ſword and office of the Magistrate, &c. is both needleſs, if you alledge it to prove the continuance of the Magiſtrates office which is not denyed: and inſufficient alſo, for if he had medled with the ſword of the Magiſtrate, would it therfore follow that the office of Magiſtracy had bene abrogate? Nothing leſs: no more then it followes that the office of miniſtery is abrogate, becauſe Chriſt medled with that ſword of the ſpirit, in preaching of the Goſpel. As for Deut. 12. 2. Kin. 10, &c. where as you ſay that you have before replyed vntounto my anſwers: ſo have I before anſwered you, and refuted your replyes.