Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI. Touching almes receyved publiquely in an Idol-Temple.
Hen. Ainſ.FOr your 3. it is an obiection of a former adverſrie, and heretofore publickly anſwered. But the anſwers, you ſay, are in ſufficient. For, the difference between the ordinary publick worſhip in ſuch places, & the occaſional receiving of almes therin by the poore, cannot (you ſay) without manifest untrueth be affirmed or applied to the matter in hand. Your reaſon is, the distribution of this almes, is not occaſional, but an ordinary publik work of merciemercy, &c. I anſwer; The publik worſhip of the Church is Eccleſiaſtical, the almes here ſpoken of, is political and civil: to put no difference between theſe, is manifeſt errour and ignorance; and let all men of knowledge, be judges. Againe, peoples of all Religions or of no Religion, which never goe thither for religious exerciſe, yet upō occaſion of the almes there given, goe thither to receive it in the winter, one working day in the week, from the hands of the Magiſtrates deputies: to ſay there is no difference between theſe things, argueth want of iudgement.
To the 2. difference which we put, between the benevolence of a Church to the ſaincts, (the ſacrifice ſpoken of Phil. 4.18.) and the releef of a citie, given to all poor people without reſpect of their religion: you anſwer, the benevolence given to the poore of any Religion, is //Heb. 13.16. Gal. 6.10. 2. Cor. 9.13a ſacrifice, &c. And this almes is not the releef of a citie, but cheifly of a Church, collected publickly every Lords day, in the congregation of the Saints, &c.
Repl. Firſt, for the ſcriptures which you cite, they imply private benevolence alſo, and not publik onelyonly: ſo upon this your doctrine, it ſeemeth that if any of your people ſhould for their neceſsitie receive private almes of papiſts or other heretiks, they ſhould not receive a ciuil benevolence but an Eccleſiaſtical, and ſo have a Religious communion with their ſacrifices. If thus you think, I pray you tell me in your next. Secondly, you ſay not wel nor rightly, that this is not the releef of a citie, (as we oppoſe Citie or political eſtate, to Church or Eccleſiaſtical eſtate) For 1. the Magiſtrats of the citie, are not neceſsarily of the Church, but onelyonly ſuch as will. 2. This collection is not by the appointment of the Church (who have an eccleſiastical collection by their Deacons,) but by the appointmēt of the Magistrate. 3. They collect it not from the Church onelyonly in their congregation, but from all the citie alſo, by every ſtreet and houſe, of all the inhabitants that wil give: of which not one among many, are members of the Church. 4. They collect it not for the Church, but for the citie: and ſo for the poore of the Church, not conſidered as members of the Church, but as members of the common wealth. 5. The diſtributors appointed by the Magiſtrates, are not neceſſarily members, much leſſe Deacons of the Church. 6. And they to whom it is diſtributed, are the poore of all ſorts, not in reſpect as they are members of any Church: but as they are poore and dwelt for a time in the citie. Theſe things ſome of them my ſelf know, the rest I have heard of ſuch as are better acquainted with the State, to be certainly true. Now let all that know what politicall and eccleſiaſtical meaneth, judge between you and vsus, of what nature this benevolence is.
To our 3. difference, between the ſolemne appointed worſhip of God by the Church, & the private duties of thankfulnes, ſalutation, &c you ſay, the duties of godly thankfulnes and bleſsing in the name of the Lord are and ought to be here performed: and that they are not private duties but publik, as is this almes, &c. I anſwer: By this your plea, you would ſeem to prove an eccleſiaſtical communion in publick prayer, which the dutch Church of this citie ſhould have with all the poore in the towne; even the moſt irreligious, profane and heretical. And would you thus grace their communion to diſgrace our poore? But indeed, you manifeſtly turne away from the matter in hand. For you deny not the difference which we put, neyther in trueth can you. And as for any publi…k bleſsing, it is knowen that the Magiſtrates deputies performe this buſines without any publik prayer or bleſsing, eyther before or after. Neyther do they require of all or any of the people any prayer or bleſsing publick or private: neyther doe the people performe it otherweiſe then by thankfull obeyſance of ech one that receiveth it: as is vſually doen at other times, and in other places of the citie, for like favours.
VntoUnto the queſtion made in that book, about the lawfulnes to walk vp and down in idol-temples, as they vſe in Paules, &c. You anſwer: that in idol-temples where idolſervice is ſtil ordinarily performed, we cannot lawfully walk vp and down, as men vſe to doe in Pauls: for woe is denounced to men by whom bMat. 18.7ſcandals doe come. Repl. Behold how you who keep Idolies to worſhip God in (as Antichriſt conſecrated them to that end,) and have ſo pleaded before for thoſe nurſeries of idolatrie: can now against others, denounce woe, as cauſing ſcandals, even for walking vp and down in them. But by this your anſwer it ſeemeth that eyther the temples in Rome and Spaine, where ordinarily Maſse is ſung, are in your judgment no idol-temples, nor their ſervice idolatrie: or elſe, you think it vnlawfull to walk in thoſe temples. If thus you hold, when you ſhall ſo ſignify, you ſhall hear what I wil further ſay vntounto it: and to your queſtion about Baals temple alſo.
Anſwer.
Io. Pa.TO convince you of partialitie in condemning our vſe of temples, I alledged your own vſe of the ſame, while your poore do alſo publiquely worſhip God in the ſame temples, if they do but publiquely bleſſe them in the name of God, of whom they do publiquely receive thoſe almes in ſuch places. And here I aSee before pag. 27.refuted three diſtinctions which you vſe to excuſe your ſelves in this matter. I ſhewed the errour of your firſt diſtinction, in that you made the receyving of the almes in this place to be occaſional, and the worſhip of the Church to be ordinary, &c. Now you anſwer, that the publique worſhip of the Church is eccleſiaſtical, the almes here ſpoken of, is political & civil, &c. And herevnto I reply. 1. I do not herein ſo much blame your manifeſt errour & ignorance, your want of judgement in the diſtinction as you made it at firſt, as I do now blame your want of vpright and honeſt dealing in changing and altering the diſtinction, in putting political and civil in ſtead of occaſional: As there is a plaine difference betwixt betwixt Eccleſiaſticall and political, ſo is there alſo betvvixt politicall & occaſional: for many things are political which are not occaſional, but ordinary: let all men of knowledge, be judges. 2, vvhereas you ſay that people of all religion or of no religion do receive this almes, this doth not excuſe the falſ hood of your firſt diſtinction in making the almes to be occaſional: for even atheiſts or heretiques or ſchiſmatiques that never go thither to heare the word of God, may yet obſerve an ordinary & ſet time of the almes, and be willing to receive the ſame in a publique & ſolemne maner & not onelyonly occaſionally. 3. Though it were very groſſe, if you ſhould plainely affirme that this almes here ſpoken of was occaſional; yet to colour the matter a little you vſe an abſurd phraſe which might inſinuate as much vntounto the ſimple, in ſaying of the poore that vponupon occaſion of the almes there given, they go thither to receive it, &c. for you might as wel ſay touching the publique ordinary worſhip of the Church, that vponupon occaſion of the word preached the godly go to heare, &c. And where then is your difference betwixt occaſionall and ordinary? 4, I will make even your ſelf judge of the matter: for when you ſpeak without preiudice & contention, then you do rightly interpret this word occaſional, and do expound bAnnot. on Exo. 21.13.occaſionally delivered to be offred by chance: an example whereof is ſet downe in Deut. 19.5. And ſo according to your owne expoſition of the word this almes cannot be occaſionall, ſeing it is not an vnexpected thing that is by accident or chance received, but an ordinary, ſolemne thing purpoſely given and ſought for at an appoynted time & place.
In the refutation of your ſecond diſtinction, the firſt thing which I cSee before pag. 27.noted in oppoſition therevnto was, that not onelyonly the benevolence given to the miniſters or Saints of Chriſte, but that alſo which is given to the poore of any religion whatſoever, one or other, is a ſervice and dHeb. 13.16 Gal. 6 10. 2. Cor. 9.13ſacrifice of ſweet odour, &c. And what have you ſayd herevnto? 1, in repeating my reply, you leave out thoſe words not onelyonly, which ſhewed the very poynt wherein I oppoſed your anſwer, and ſay nothing at all vntounto it: but ſmoothly paſſe it over without any defence: I deſire the reader to obſerve your cunning therein. 2, In ſtead of anſwering that which was plainely ſet downe, you make enquirie about a deviſed thing ſeeming ſo vntounto you which is not ſet downe nor meant at all: you aſk me whether I think that if any of our people for their neceſſitie ſhould receive private almes of Papiſts or other heretiques they ſhould not receive a civil benevolence but an eccleſiaſticall, &c. VVherevnto I anſwer that I do not thinke they ſhould receive an eccleſiaſticall benevolence: yea further if our people ſhould privately joyne with ſuch in prayer vntounto God, yet would I not account this an eccleſiaſticall communion or action. And though the ſcriptures I cited may be applyed to private benevolence alſo and not publique onelyonly: yet doth not the citing of them imply that I think private benevolēce to be an eccleſiaſticall matter. what meane you to runne away from queſtion by ſuch vaine ſhifts?
The other thing which I noted in oppoſition to your ſecond diſtinction, was: that this almes we ſpeak of is not the releefe of a citie, but cheefely the benevolence of a Church, &c. Herevnto you reply that I ſay not well nor rightly, &c. Your reaſons are divers.
Firſt you ſay, the Magiſtrates of the citie are not neceſſarily of the Church, but onelyonly ſuch as will. I anſwer, 1. This hinders not but the almes ſpoken of may be cheefely the benevolence of a Church: even as other actions may be actions of the church, though the Magiſtrates be not of the Church. Shew I pray you, how this your propoſition may be applyed againſt my aſſertion … vvhat if the Magiſtrates here were all neceſſarily of the Church ſhould this make the almes to be then the benevolence of the Church? ſhould this either further or hinder the thing in queſtion? your looſe allegation can no way be applyed vntounto this matter, either one way or other.
Secondly you ſay, this collection is not by the appointment of the Church (who have an other eccleſiaſticall collection by their deacons) but by the appointment of the Magiſtrate. I anſwer, that there be many eccleſiaſticall actions, which are done by the appoyntmēt of the Magiſtrate, as the holding of an eccleſiaſticall Synod: the obſervation of ſolemne and religious faſts not by the appoyntment of the Church but of the Magiſtrate: yea the ordinary worſhip of God in preaching the word and other ſervices here are and e2. Chro. 8.14. & 14.4.ought to be commanded by the Magiſtrates: And now according to your vnſound reaſoning theſe and ſuch like actiōs ſhould not be eccleſiaſticall. You ought to have conſidered that as in theſe ſo in the almes ſpoken of, becauſe they are adminiſtred publiquely of the Church and at the exhortation of the miniſters going with the ſame, they may therfore be called the benevolence of a Church, though appoynted by the Magiſtrates.
Thirdly you plead that they collect it not from the Church onelyonly in their congregation, but from all the citie alſo, by every ſtreet and houſe, &c. I anſwer, 1. In that this almes is ordinarily and publiquely gathered every Lords day in the congregation, and that the greateſt part thereof is collected in this ſolemne maner in the Church, the other collection in the ſtreets being but ſeldome in compariſon of this; this is enough to confirme as much as I affirme, namely that this almes is not the releefe of a citie but cheefely the benevolence of a Church, &c. All reaſon requires that ech thing ſhould receive denomination of that which is principall and cheef therein. 2, even that which the deacons diſtribute is by them collected for a great part thereof, of ſuch as are no members of the Church: and this not onelyonly in reſpect of the ſtrangers which come into their congregations, but alſo privately collected from ſuch as dayly get ſome thing into the poore mans box vponupon occaſion of bargianes with whoſoever. And thus according to your reaſoning that which the deacons diſtribute ſhould be the releef of a citie, & not cheefely the benevolence of a Church, becauſe they do not collect it from the church onelyonly in their congregation, &c. 3, even that almes which is collected in your owne Church, is not from the members of your Church onelyonly: but though an 100, ſtrangers, infidelles in your account, come into your congregation and ſhould publiquely contribute with the reſt into your Church treaſure, though it was heretofore fRefut of Giff. p 147.condemned by H. Barow) yet do you now accept and allow the ſame. If this almes thus receyved among you be eccleſiaſticall, then have you no reaſon to deny this other almes we ſpeak of, to be the benevolence of a Church, in reſpect of the perſons from whom it is collected.
Fourthly, you argue, that they collect it not for the Church, but for the citie: and ſo for the poore, &c. I anſwer, that it may be an Eccleſiaſtical almes if it be collected of the Church, though not for the Church. As thoſe prayers which are publiquely made by the Church gEzr. 6.10. Ier. 29.7. Mat. 5.44. 1. Tim. 2.1.2.for ſtrangers, and for ſuch as are no members of the Church, are to be accounted an Eccleſiaſticall ſervice, and a worſhip of the Church, though they be made not for the Church, but for the citie, for frendes or enimies without: evenſo the almes collected of the Church in a ſolemne aſſembly on the Lords day, and given as a part of their publique ſervice vntounto God, are to be eſteemed a benevolence of the Church or a Church-ſervice, though they be collected for ſuch as are in miſery, though not of the Church; ſeing the Churches (as well as private perſons) are hEſa. 58.7. Neh. 5.5. Heb. 13.2.3 1 Theſ. 4.12.bound to ſhew mercy vntounto them without.
Fiftly, you argue that the diſtributors appoynted by the Magiſtrats, are not neceſsarily members, much leſse deacons of the Church. But where is the proofe of this conſequence, that therfore this almes is not an Eccleſiaſticall benevolence? If your Church ſhould agree together publiquely to collect in your congregation and then to ſend the ſame almes vntounto any in affliction, and not by any deacons or members of your Church but by ſome other honeſt and truſty perſons without; ſhould this almes now ceaſſe to be a Church ſervice, or an Eccleſiaſticall bevevolence? VVhat colour of reaſon can you bring for this?
Sixtly, you ſay, they to whom it is distributed, are the poore of all ſorts, not in reſpect as they are members of any Church, but as they are poore and have dwelt for a time in the citie. Anſ. This reaſon is the ſame in effect with the 4th that went before, and an idle repetition of the ſame, and is before anſwered. And now I do willingly agree with you in this that all who know what political and eccleſiaſtical meaneth, judge betweene you and vsus of what nature this benevolence is, and whether it be not as I ſayd cheefly the benevolence of a Church, &c.
But ſuppoſe I ſhould grant you, that this almes were merely civill, and not the benevolence of a Church, yet this doth nothing weaken our maine obiection againſt you: for 1. VVhether it be eccleſiaſticall or civill, if your people do publiquely in the name of God bleſſe thoſe that ſo mercifully diſtribute vntounto them in an Idol-temple as you account it; then muſt you needes acknowledge, that there is a lawfull worſhipping of God in an Idol-temple, which yet you condemne in all other churches of God. 2, you cannot deny but that this diſtribution of almes which your people do receive in this temple, is a ſolemne publique action performed for the glory and ſervice of God by them that adminiſter: And do you then hold it more lawfull to communicate with ſuch almoners as yourſelf note to be ſometimes no mēbers of the Church, then to joyne in the ſervice of God with a true Church in the ſame place? If it were an eccleſiaſticall action of the deacons of the reformed dutch Church, diſtributing out of their Church treaſurie as they do vntounto the members of their owne Church, would you then cō demne the members of your Church for receiving the ſame of them? 3. By your doctrine this temple where your poore receive this almes, ought to be ruinated, either burnt or otherwiſe broken downe, and ſo in your judgement is vnlawfully reteyned even for this vſe of diſtributing to the poore therein: Now if notwithſtanding this vnlawfull reteyning hereof you can yet joyne with others in vſing this place to ſuch purpoſe of diſtributing almes therein as it ought not to be employed vntounto: why can you not as well joyne with others in the other vſe of hearing Gods word therein? The iDeut. 12.23.legal commandemēt of deſtroying Idol-temples, doth as wel aboliſh them from being almes houſes as from being houſes of prayer. And where then is your diſpenſation to vſe them for receiving of almes, rather then for receyving of ſpirituall inſtructions therein? If you plead that your vſe of them is onelyonly a civil vſe, ſo as meates ſacrificed to Idols were to be reteyned: This cannot help you, becauſe k1. Cor. 10.25.things ſacrificed to Idols need not to be burnt and aboliſhed, but by your doctrine our temples ſhould be aboliſhed, and deſtroyed, and ſo conſequently made vnfit to meet or aſſemble in even for civil vſes. A waken your conſcience Mr. Ainſworth, and examine yourſelf, whether you be not guilty of partialitie, in theſe your contrary doctrines and practiſes, which cannot agree one with an other. And thinke that God knockes at the dore of your conſcience by theſe admonitions: and deſpiſe not the counſell that is given vntounto you in his name.
As for your third diſtinction, between the ſolemne appoynted worſhip of God by the Church, and the private dueties of thankfulnes ſalutation, &c. I ſhevved that this diſtinction alſo could not truely be applyed vntounto the matter in hād for the dueties of godly thankfulnes and bleſsing which are and ought to be here performed, are not private dueties but publique even as is this almes that is alwayes publiquely adminiſtred in the preſence of a great multitude aſſembled together. Herevnto you anſvver againe that by this plea, I would ſeem to prove an Eccleſiaſticall cōmunion in publique prayer, which the dutch Church of this citie ſhould have with all the poore in the towne, even the moſt irreligious, profane and heretical, &c. But for reply vntounto this. 1. I obſerve how you againe leaving that which is plainely ſet downe, do faine matter for yourſelf to anſwer, and imagine a ſemblance, a ſeeming vntounto you, which can by no meanes be juſtly collected from my words. For though I ſayd, the poore do bleſſe publiquely in the name of the Lord thoſe that diſtribute vntounto them, yet doth not this prove a communion in publique prayer which the dutch church ſhould have with all ſuch. 2, though I had ſayd much more: if I had ſayd that the dutch Church had bene all preſent: that this almes had bene given by their deacons in their name: that there had bene ſolemne prayer conceived by the deacons at the delivery thereof: that all the poore had ſayd Amen vntounto it and againe bleſſed them publiquely in the name of the Lord, yet would not this inferre ſuch an eccleſiaſticall communion of the dutch Church with the profane & heretical poore, as you accuſe me for going about to prove. Are not many irreligious, idolatrous and profane people oftentimes preſent at your eccleſiaſtical aſſemblies hearing your ſermons, and ſaying Amen vntounto your prayers: & doth this prove an eccleſiaſticall communion of your Church withall thoſe profane perſons that receive inſtruction from you? where then is your ſeparation? But if all this do not prove that you hold communion with ſuch perſons: then much leſſe doth that which I ſayd prove ſuch a communion of the Dutch Church with the profane, as you would draw from my words.3, neither do I mention this receyving of almes to diſgrace your poore, as you mention it, but to reprove your partialitie, who ſeeking to diſgrace and condemne all the Churches of Chriſt for the vſe of their temples, do yet for your proffit allow your poore to vſe the very ſame temples in receyving of almes.
You ſay further, that I manifeſtly turne from the matter in hād: for I deny not the difference which you put, neither in truth can. But I pray you, is that to turne from the queſtion, when I ſhewed that the difference or diſtinction which you brought could not be truely applyed to this matter in hand? And what though your difference alledged by you be true in itſelf: is it not reproofe & ſhame enough vntounto you that it cannot be truely applyed vntounto the preſent controverſie? Is not the miſapplication of a true diſtinction vnſound dealing, and an abuſing of the reader? Though I deny not a difference betwixt ſolemne appoynted worſhip, and the private dueties of thankfulnes, ſalutation, &c. yet I deny that the bleſſing in the name of God whereof I ſpoke is any private thankfulnes or ſalutation: and what proffit can you then here make of this your diſtinction?
But you proceed and ſay, As for any publique bleſsing, it is knowne that the Magiſtrates deputies performe this buſines, without any publick prayer or bleſsing, either before or after. I anſwer, 1, it is enough, for proofe of that I ſayd, if the people receyving the almes do pray or bleſſe in the name of God, thoſe that diſtribute vntounto them: if your poore do ſo much at the receit thereof then do they openly and publiquely worſhip God in the place, which you account an Idol-temple. 2, as for the diſtributours of this almes, there is the leſſe need for them to make any publique prayer, becauſe they begin there diſtribution inſtantly and immediately after the ſermon is ended, and after the publique prayers of the miniſter and the Church: which prayers being in the ſame place may alſo ſerve for the ſanctification of the almes then diſtributed. And may not the conſciences of your people be touched and ſmitten in them ſelves to conſider how they ſtay out of the Church till all theſpirituall almes of inſtruction for the ſoule be diſtributed and ended, and then to come into the ſame place immediately, juſt when the corporall almes is to be reached forth vntounto them? 3. The publique collection and giving of almes even in your owne Church after your ſermon, is performed without any publique prayer or bleſsing made by your deacons, as is teſtifyed vntounto me: doth it therfore ceaſs to be an eccleſiaſticall and ſolemne part of Gods worſhip?
You ſay moreover, that neither do they require of all or any of the people any prayer or bleſsing publique or private. And what though the almoners require it not? yet as I ſhewed you lPag. 26.before from divers mPhil. 4.19.20. 2. Tim. 1.16. 2. Cor. 9.12.13.ſcriptures, God requireth this duety of publique thankſgiving and bleſsing in his name vponupon ſuch occaſion. But thoſe teſtimonies you paſſe by and ſay nothing at all vntounto them.
Againe you adde: Neither do the people performe it otherwiſe then by thankfull obeyſance of ech one that receyveth it, &c. But this you ſay, is not true for all that receyve it: for there are ſome which vponupon the receit do ſtraightway open their mouthes and pray for a bleſsing and reward vntounto thoſe that give this almes vntounto them: And ſo ought your people to do according to thoſe ſhort formes of prayer vſed in the ſcripture, npſ. 129.8. Ruth. 2.4.The bleſsing of the Lord be vponupon you: or we bleſſe you in the name of the Lord: And beſides, I propounded this obiection at firſt by way of ſuppoſitiō ſaying, if you will allow your people to bleſſe them in the name of the Lord, &c. And to this you anſwer nothing: Tell vsus therfore at laſt: if your people ſhould thus breefely call vponupon the name of God for a bleſſing vponupon thoſe that miniſter publiquely vntounto their wants at the ſame time, vvould you then be content?
Touching your reply made vntounto the anſwer vvhichwhich I gave vntounto your queſtion about vvalking vp and dovvne in Idol-temples I do obſerve further.
1. You ſay nothing at all in refutation of it: but onelyonly wiſh me to behold how I who keep Idolies to worſhip God in, &c. can now againſt others, denounce woe, as cauſing ſcandalles, even for walking vp and downe in them: vvel, this I behold and hold to be moſt equall: conſidering that the temples I pleaded for, were ſuch as are purged from Idolatry, and are not reteyned for that falſe worſhip wherevnto they were conſecrated by Antichriſte, but are become nurſeries of true godlines: whereas the temples wherein the Idols and Idolatrous ſervice are ſtill reteyned and dayly practiſed, cannot lawfully be frequented nor walked in as men vnneceſſarily vſe to do in Pawles, &c. For thoſe that ſhould ſee you enter into ſuch an Idol-temple, might eaſily conceive that you went to heare a maſſe therein, and ſo they be confirmed in errour, & you thereby incurie the oMat. 18.7woe denounced by Chriſte againſt Scandalles.
2. I may here juſtly admoniſh you to behold how you that cō dēne our vſe of tēples purged frō Idolatry, do yet in a cōtrary extreme allow your people a vſe of tēples, which by your profeſſiō are ſtill polluted with the practiſe of dayly Idolatrie: evē the tē ples of this citie are in your accoūt Idol-tēples, & the read prayr vſed therin, is in your eyes a deteſtable Idol, a goldē calfe, &c. yea in your writings you incline to allow your people the vſe of the tēples where popiſh Idolatry is in heynous degree exerciſed
3. VVhereas you ſeeme to doubt whether I think that it is vnlawfull to vvalk in the temples in Rome and Spaine, vvhere ordinarily maſſe is ſung: telling me alſo that I ſhall heare what you will further ſay vntounto it when I have ſignifyed vntounto you, if thus I hold, &c. All this is very vaine and idle, for vvhen I told you plainely before, as yourſelf alſo repeat, that in idol-temples where idol-ſervice is ſtill ordinarily performed we cannot lawfully walk vp and downe as men vſe to do in Pauls: was not this enough to ſignify that I held the temples of Rome and Spaine to be vnlawfull for ſuch vſe? or what colour of reaſon had you to imagine that I ſhould not think the Romiſh and Spaniſh temples to be Idol temples and their ſervice, idolatrie? This vaine demurre ſeemes to be nothing els but an excuſe or ſhift to avoyd the writing of that which you were aſhamed tovtter concerning this poynt.
4. VVhereas I demanded the like thing of you, whether you held it lawfull for men ſo to have walked vp and downe in the houſe of Baal, and there to have receyved almes as your people do in theſe temples whereof we ſpeak. To this likewiſe you give no anſwer but take time to conſider of it. VVell, in the meane time vntill you have taken better adviſe, ſee vvhat an vnworthy practiſe you already ſtaine yourſelf vvithall. You that condemne our temples to be pSee before, p. 165.merely and properly idolies, yea very Idols: you that condemne our reteyning of them for neceſſary vſe, do yet for your proffit vſe them to vvalke in, to receive almes in, &c. Though H. Barow vvrite that qDiſcov. p. 134.God allowes no vſe at all either civill or eccleſiaſticall of ſuch Idolatrous places: yet contrary to your profeſſion you ſuffer your people to tranſgreſſe for a morſell of bread, by reteyning at leaſt a civil vſe of theſe places: In the middes of your invectives and diſpute againſt them you allovv your diſciples to go into theſe abominable ſties, as Barovv rDiſcov. p. 141.calles them: togather vp the crummes vnderunder the table in Devilles houſes, as yourſelf do ſBefore. pag. 218.call them. Is it not ſtrange that Chriſtian men, and ſuch as ſeparate from other beſt Chriſtians in the world whereſoever, ſhould yet be ſo familiar with devilles, as to creep into the bodies of very Idols or Devilles, to fetch their meate out of their vncleane ſtomackes and bellies? yea the Iewiſh Rabbines whom I mention, becauſe you honour them ſo much, tArba turim, halac. Tſedakah, or treat. of almes, ſig. 254. Thalmud in Babha bathra c. 1. Fol. 10.teach that it is not lawful for an Iſraelite to receive any almes of an Idolater openly, vnleſſe it be in caſe of neceſſitie, (which reſpect in our vſe of temples you judge to be a carnal conſideration.) And though a Prince or King of the gentiles ſhould ſend any money vntounto them for an almes, though they would not turne it back for peace ſake, but receive it to avoyd offence, yet are they to give the ſame againe vntounto ſome poore of the gentiles, in ſecret ſo that the King may not heare of it. How much more aſhamed would they be to receive ſuch an almes not onelyonly from Idolaters openly, but from out of the publique Idolie, yea Idol itſelf, as you profeſſe to doe?