Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Chapter 12 · Section 2
Section. 2.
AGainſt the example of Iakobs practiſe in Gen. 35.2. (which was before Moſes policie) you obiect, how many private houſes ſhould then be raſed: ſeing they have been polluted with idolatrie, and been nurſeries of ſuperſtition, as well as their publik high places, Ioſ. 24.23. Iudg. 17.4. Zeph. 1.5. with Deut. 27.15.
I anſwer; first you change the ſtate of the queſtion, which is of Idols and idolies: and not of houſes or other things polluted with idolatrie. Secondly, there is no law of God to deſtroy ſuch civil-houſes, as there is to deſtroy idolies: (and where there is no Law, there is aRom. 4.15.no tranſgreſsion:) but on the contrary, God gave Iſrael the Canaanites bDeut. 6.10 11.Cities and howſes to dwell in, when he cDeut. 12.2.3.commanded their idolies to be demoliſhed. Thirdly, you have no reaſon to compare civil houſes polluted with idolatrie, with idols or idolies: ſeing even Gods own houſe was polluted with idolatrie, & yet was not counted an idolie, or deſtroyed, but d2. King. 23 4.6.11.12.cleanſed: neyther can it without impietie, be matched with the high places of idols, or counted a nurſerie of ſuperſtition, as wel as they. Neither are any civil dwelling houſes, though idols have been worſhiped in them, ſuch moniments of idolatrie, or nurſeries of ſuperſtition, as the temples of heathens or of Antichriſtians; which are merely and properly idolies yea very idols, as before I have manifeſted from the Pontifical. And this we may learne of the heathen eAct. 19.27Demetrius, who complained how by the Apoſtles preaching, the temple of the great goddeſse Diana ſhould be deſpiſed, and her Maieſtie ſhould be deſtroyed: which he would never have ſpoken of the dwelling houſes of Epheſus, though her worſhipers kept in them. The Papiſts alſo wil tell you, that the very fBellarm. de cult. ſanct. lib. 3. c. 4.vvalles of their Churches dedicated vntounto God, doe move vntounto pietie, as doe the Altars, croſſes, images, &c. which incitements to devotion are not found otherwhere. That God is after gIbidem.a peculiar manner in the temple, and heareth mens prayers ſooner there, by promiſe. That the temple is dedicated to ſacred actions, and is not a profane houſe but an holy: and hIbid. c. 5.to ſignify that, it is anoynted with oile. That the Divil iIbidem.is caſt out of it and not ſuffred there to dwell, therfore the dore is knocked on, and the Divill is bidden goe away. So that there is no compariſon between theſe conſecrate places, and the common houſes of men: and let our very enemies be the judges. Fourthly, the Hebrew doctors who are moſt preciſe in condemning outward moniments of idolatrie, and hold even a ceremoniall pollution by the very touching of an idol; yet ſay of ſuch civil houſes wherin Idols are ſet vp, that when the kMaimony treat. of Idolatrie c. 8 ſ. 4.the Idol is taken out, the houſe is lawfull. And theſe things ſerve for anſwer to the ſcriptures by you cited; and to the houſes of the Muſcovites and Papiſts, and the houſes wherin we our ſelves meet, which you obiect vntounto vsus, and doe vntruly call one of them, the Iewes Idol-temple.
Anſwer.
VVHen you argued that our temples were to be deſtroyed becauſe they ſerve to nouriſh ſuperſtition, I ſhewed the weaknes of this argument, becauſe of the inconvenience that would follow; namely, that thē many private houſes which both of ancienter and later times have bene defiled with Idols, ſhould likewiſe be deſtroyed, being nurſeries of ſuperſtition as well as other publike places: Touching this firſt, you ſay, I change the state of the queſtion which is of Idols and Idolies, & not of houſes or other things polluted with Idolatrie. I anſwer, 1. either you do not mark my reaſon, or els you do not vnderſtand the lawes of right reaſoning: for that which I ſayde of the lawfull reteyning of private houſes was not to reſt therein, as in a concluſion of the queſtion; but the mention thereof ſerved onelyonly as a medius terminus or as an argument to infer the concluſion, as if I had vſed this Syllogiſme:
If all nurſeries of ſuperſtitiō are to be vtterly deſtroyed, thenare private houſes alſo to be deſtroyed for nouriſhing of ſuperſtition.
But private houſes are not to be deſtroyed for their nouriſhing of ſuperſtition.
Therfore, al nurſeries of ſuperſtition are not to be deſtroyed.
From hence you might have diſcerned the force of your reaſon, drawne from the nouriſhing of ſuperſtition, refuted. 2. If this kinde of reaſoning in me may not be admitted, then may I in like maner tel you when you ſeek to infer inconveniencies vpō me, by the cope, mitre, ſurplice, & ſuch like things; that you change the ſtate of the queſtion betwixt vsus, vvhichwhich is not about veſtments and ſurplices, but about places and temples abuſed vntounto Idolatry. 3. It is yourſelf vvho indeed ſeek to chang the ſtate of the queſtion, in that you ſay, our queſtion is of Idols, which it is not, but onelyonly of Idolies, or places abuſed vntounto Idolatry, as may appeare by the queſtions propounded in my kFol. 2. a.firſt writings, accepted of by you: neither have you proved our Temples to be Idols, that ſo by that meanes you might bring in Idols within the compaſſe of the queſtion. 4. You do here contradict your ſelf, when you ſay, the queſtion is of Idolies, and not of houſes or other things polluted with Idolatrie: For, I pray you, what is an Idolie, but an houſe or place polluted with Idolatrie? As publique houſes polluted with Idols, are publique Idolies; ſo are private houſes polluted with Idolatrie, private Idolies: And therfore both in the Syriaque and Arabique tranſlations of 1. Cor. 8.10. in ſtead of Idolie, they have the houſe of Idols: and in other places of Scripture, theſe Idolies are called lIudg. 17.4.5.houſes of Idols, and houſes of Gods.
Secondly, you ſay, there is no law of God to deſtroy ſuch civill houſes, as there is to destroy idolies, &c. I anſwer: ſeing God gave vntounto Iſrael the cities and houſes of the Canaanites to dwell in, when as he commanded the publique places of their Idolatry to be demoliſhed, as you confeſſe: this confirmes that which I ſayd, and ſhewes that the commandement of deſtroying publique idolies did not depend merely vponupon the nouriſhing ofIdolatry, for then the private idolies ſhould have bene deſtroyed alſo for their nouriſhing of Idolatry: becauſe the like ſins deſerve and call for the like judgement. And this appeares yet further from your owne allegation compared with other ſcriptures: for vvhereas in Deut. 6.10.11. God allowes Iſrael to dwell in the cities and houſes of the Canaanites, to enioy their welles, their vineyards and olive trees; yet at an other time according to the pleaſure of his owne will, he m2. Kin. 3 19.25.commands the cities and houſes of Idolatrous Moabites to be deſtroyed; every faire tree to be felled; all their fountaines of water to be ſtopt; and every good field to be marred with ſtones; to ſhew his deteſtation of their ſin, which yet he would not have to be ſhewed againſt the Canaanites by the ſame meanes, although the ſnare and danger of being nouriſhed in Idolatry and other ſin, was greater and more to be feared from the Canaanites then from the Moabites. If God tooke ſuch a different courſe with Idolatrous and nouriſhers of ſuperſtition vnderunder the law; it ought not to ſeeme ſtrange vntounto vsus that he declares his deſtation of Idolatry now vnderunder the Goſpell by other meanes and maner then vnderunder the law, according to the counſell of his owne will.
In the third place, you ſay, I have no reaſon to compare civill houſes polluted with Idolatry, with Idols or Idolies: ſeing even Gods owne houſe was polluted with idolatrie, and yet was not counted an Idolie, or deſtroyed, &c. I anſwer, 1. Suppoſe I had no reaſon to compare civill houſes with Idolies as you ſay; yet your reaſon from Gods houſe doth not warrant you ſo to ſay: for the tēple of God having many priviledges which civil houſes had not, might be exempted from the judgement of preſent deſtructiō more then they: & therfore your plea is inſufficient. 2, though Gods owne houſe, when it was polluted with Idolatry, vvas not to be deſtroyed, but cleanſed as 2. Kin. 23. yet have you no warrant to ſay, that It was not counted an Idolie: but as it vvas ſometimes denominate of other ſins, and called nIer. 7 11. mat. 21.13a Denne of Theeves, vvhen ſuch vvickednes vvas maintayned: ſo vvhat hinders but that it might likevviſe be called a Denne of Idolaters, or an Idolie, during the time that it vvas full of Idols and not cleanſed from Idolatrie? 3, it is alſo falſe vvhichwhich you ſay of the temple, that it cannot without impietie be matched with the high places, or counted a nurſery of ſuperſtition as well as they. For when as the temple, through the abhominable Idolatries o2. Kin. 21 4.5. &c. Ier. 2.10.11 & 3.11. Ezek. 16.46.47.51.52.57. & 23.11.39.40. &c.practiſed in it was become an vncleane ſtewes of ſpirituall whoredome, above many of the Idol-places, being alſo more famous for the place and perſons polluting it and entiſing vntounto Idolatry, exceeding Sodom and Samaria in their heathniſh Idolatries: did not this notorious ſcandall given in the temple of God nouriſh ſuperſtition ten times more then the Idolatries committed in ſome obſcure Idol temples of the heathen? And though God gave no law for deſtroying of this his temple when it became a nurſery of ſuperſtition, yet this hinders not but that it did ſometimes match and overmatch the high places of the heathens in nouriſhing of Idolatry. The vvill of God vvas that ſome Idolies ſhould be deſtroyed & ſome not. 4, for civil dwelling houſes where Idols have bene worſhiped, though they be not ſuch moniments and nurſeries of ſuperſtition, as ſome other publique Idolies, that impeacheth not my aſſertion: it is enough for me, that they have in ſome meaſure bene nurſeries of ſuperſtition: Even among the publique Idolies themſelves, ſome temples of Antichriſt are not ſuch nurſeries of ſuperſtition as ſome other be, which are ten times more devoutly obſerved and waited on, then the reſt. 5, how know you that that all the temples of the heathens had no civill dwellings in any part of them, & that they were (as you ſay) merely Idolies? how know you but that ſome of them might be inhabited, in ſuch maner as your Idolie is, reſerving the principall place for their Idol ſervice and devotion? your making of them mere Idolies in this ſenſe, ſeemes to be a mere preſumption and affirmation without proofe. 6, I may rather ſay on the contrary, that they were not merely Idolies becauſe ſome part of them were put to civill vſes as one of your owne pCranz. VVandal. li. 4. c. 23.Authors teſtifyeth for the Idolie that Geroldus deſtroyed: there being a meeting in the court thereof every munday for judgements by the King and the flamine: It is alſo noted of divers temples of Antichriſt, that qMagdeb. centur. 12. col. 870. 871.civil judgements, and other civil buſineſſes were wont to be performed there: And that our temples are often put vntounto divers civil vſes alſo, dayly experience witneſſeth. That which you ſay of manifeſting them to be very Idols, out of the Pontifical is already anſwered. 7. vve cannot ſay but that ſome private Idolies, and civil dwelling houſes, were equal in nouriſhing of ſuperſtition even vntounto ſome publique Idolies: when as rZeph. 1.5 2. Kin. 23.12.Altars vvere made vponupon the houſe tops, eſpecially vponupon Kings or Princes houſes as vponupon Ahaz his chamber: The reſort vntounto ſuch places and the ſcandall by the Idol-worſhip there performed might nouriſh ſuperſtition more then the devotion performed in ſome other obſcure Idolies and groves of the heathens. 8, How frivolous is that which you write of the heathen Demetrius? how know you that he would never have ſpoken of the dwelling houſes in Epheſus as he did of Dianaes temple, concerning her maieſtie? ſeing that which he ſpoke was for his ſAct. 19.24.25.gaine: and ſeing his gaine conſiſted in ſelling litle temples of Diana: it was ſutable and fit for his purpoſe that men ſhould think their private dwelling houſes would be more holy if they had thoſe litle temples or ſhrines of Diana in them, and therfore who can ſay but that he would vponupon occaſion complaine that the maieſtie of Diana and of her great temple would be deſpiſed, if men did not ſhew their devotion in buying thoſe litle temples for the hallowing of their houſes and for the maintenance of her worſhip? And what if he would not ſo have complained? yet might their houſes in Epheſus have bene Idolies, in reſpect of their lares familiares, and other houſhold Gods privately worſhipped by them. 9. VntoUnto that which you alledge out of Bellarmine touching the Popiſh opinion of holynes in their temples, I anſwer that they will alſo tell you he like touching their private dwelling houſes, when as they are conſecrated alſo accordingto their maner: namely, that the vvalles of their houſes being hallowed with the ſigne of the croſſe and holy vvater are more holy then other houſes not bleſſed after that maner; that God is then after a peculiar maner preſent in ſuch houſes more thē in other houſes; that the divell is driven avvay and expelled: for ſuch vertue and efficacie of tBellarm. de imagin. ſanc. lib. 2. cap. 29. Pontifical.driving avvay evill ſpirits, of communicating holynes, and ſtirring vp devotion they do eyery vvhere aſcribe vntounto the ſigne of the croſſe: Their common ſaying is: uCatechiſ. regin. Mariae, Angl.per crucis ſignum fugiat hinc omne malignum, &c Having therfore that Idolatrous ſigne over the dores of their dvvelling houſes vvithout; and on the vvalles vvithin, what holynes and vertue can be vvanting vntounto them? And therfore though our enimies are not to be admitted for Iudges; except it be againſt themſelves as Moſes vvDeut. 32 31.alledgeth them: yet in this matter their teſtimony is againſt you.
Fourthly, you plead from the Hebrevv doctours: & tel vsus out of Maimony, what is ſayd concerning civil houſes, namely that, when the Idol is taken out, the houſe is lawfull: Herevnto I anſvver: 1. The teſtimony & authority of Maimony is of no vveight nor worth: think you that I feare the arme of Rambam, that you come ſo oft in his name againſt me? vvhat meane you to tell vsus ſo often of hebrew doctours and Ievve doctours, vvhichwhich are indeed neither Iewes nor doctours; but ſuch as the holy Ghoſt ſpeakes of, xRev. 2.9.which ſay they are Iewes and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan: y1 Tim. 1.7They would be doctours of the law and yet vnderſtand not what they ſpeak: They are z1. Tim. 6.4.Doters about questions: puft vp and know nothing: aIbid. vſus. 5Separate thy ſelf from ſuch: But you that ſeparate your ſelf from all the miniſters of Chriſte, and in al this writing have not alledged one of the lights of the reformed Churches, do yet at every turne cal for Iewiſh, popiſh, heathniſh writers to ſpeak for you. You tell vsus they are moſt preciſe in condemning outward moniments of Idolatry &c. But it is hard to ſay vvhether theri preciſenes be more impious or abſurd; impious, in condemning the vvorſhip of God in Chriſt Ieſus to be Idolatry; abſurd, in avoyding even the bArba Turim, in lib. jore-dea. tract. cele haiajin. ſigno. 135. & tract. Pittim, ſign. 112.civill inſtruments and veſſels and meateof Chriſtians, as the pollutions of Idolatry: and this yet vvith great contradiction among themſelves. Their preciſenes is much like to that of the Iewes in the Goſpell, which cIoh. 18.28would not go into the common hall leſt they ſhould be defiled: and yet in the meane time imbrued thēſelves in the blood of Chriſt: And evē in the place alledged how vaine are the traditiōs which Maimony teacheth, touching the body of the Idolatrous oke or other tree, being lawful for vſe but onelyonly the Boughes, brāches & fruites vnlawful: dMaimony in Abod. Zarah. c. 8.with divers ſuch like. 2, you do alſo corrupt the teſtimony of Maimony in this place; for he ſpeakes not of civil houſes onelyonly as you would make him to ſpeak by your application of his words: his ſpeech may be vnderſtood of other houſes alſo, as of Synagogues built for the worſhip and ſervice of God: Neither is there any thing in that Chapter that ſhould reſtrayne his indefinite ſpeech of a houſe vntounto civil houſes: and therfore your owne Author is even in this teſtimony here produced by you, contradictory vntounto yourſelf, who in an other eCounterpoy. p 199.place do teach that though our Churches have not bene built by Antichriſt, though the Idols be alſo taken out of them, that yet they are to be deſtroyed: being herein more vnreaſonable then your preciſe and impious Maimony. 3. Suppoſe that Maimony here ſpake of civil houſes as being lawfull for vſe when the Idol is taken away, then doth he in this poynt agree with me who hold the ſame; and vvrote ſo much before, viz. that fpag. 23.God never commanded, nor the godly ever practiſed ſuch a demoliſhing of private houſes: but he is here againſt you vvho would have the houſes which have bene nurſeries of Idolatry to be deſtroyed; and conſequently the houſes of the Moſchovites, Papiſts and even of your ovvne Idolies alſo, of vvhichwhich more hereafter in their proper place.